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.

 

Bill with billions in health plan cuts passes House

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:28 PM
link   
OK you socialist nut cases.

We live in a Capitalist society.

Let's say you have a heart attack, you go to the hospital because your family decided that they would rather you live. Course, after you get the bill, because you didn't have health insurance, they may re-think that hasty decision in calling the ambulance!

You get stuck a bill for $250k. Empty your savings, retirement and you still won't pay it off. you'll get a bill, essentially, for the rest of your life.

The doctors can charge you anything they deem fair.. Health care cost rise about 23% a year, far above inflation .......

Now let's assume we have the same situation, only the guy had health insurance that covered major hospital stays like a heart attack. Guy goes the to the hospital, because he is in a group with the coverage the insurance company knocks the bill down drastically. Not that it matters. Your typical health insurance policy is a $2000 deductible, and 80/20% coverage to $10,000 .. meaning his maximum out of pocket expanses for a heart attack, including surgery, hospital boarding, medication (pending tiers) will be .... $4,000 ... beats the hell out of selling your house to pay off a life long debt of 250k. A typical insurance plan will pay 3-5 MILLION in expenses. Of course, average family plan is $350 or more, hell, that is probably a cheap plan.

^^ real story.

Now, let's take the SAME situation, and apply it to universal coverage.

Guy goes to hospital, but dies on the gerny because there where not enough doctors to see him right away. Family didn't have to pay a thing though .. well .. just an additional 20% of their income in taxes, which, if your a typical middle class American family with a combined income of 100k a year, an ADDITIONAL 20k in taxes to pay for universal health care.

Sure as hell sucks, compared to a maximum 4k out of pocket for your health insurance......

OK OK let's assume the guy lives to see the doctors ... the Doc's are no longer the best in the World, hell they are hardly more then public servants.. the conditions in the hospital reek because the Middle Class was destroyed under the sudden tax burden that financially ruined the nation, so there is STILL not enough funding to cover hospital expenses. .. doctors are laid off, equipment is cut off, doctors take pay cuts, they resort to requiring HS diploma's and 2 year degrees for nurses...

The same guy dies because of a botched open heart surgery.

Oh snap ..

If only the socialist didn't # him over..

I will feel bad for society, when those who suffer from bad health care decide whats more important .. new rims and a big screen TV, or some damn health insurance!

*note, the more people that HAVE health insurance, the cheaper health insurance is.*

*also note, doctors are doctors because its prestigious and pays well. Will a doctor be the same doctor getting paid no more then any other middle class job? .. Do you think socialized medicine will actually pay doctors well? .. Most doctors are turning away from subsidized benefit prgrams the gov gives the poor because the poor 1. abuse it and 2. the gov continues to screw the doctors out of money.*

300,000,000 people and free socialized medicine = social collapse.

And yes, I do sell health insurance, and I do know what I am talking about.

Socialist.


[edit on 6/24/2008 by Rockpuck]




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
That is OK, American people do not need to have the government paying for social help.

The cuts are needed see with such a bankrupt nation that we have become, our government needs to scratch money from any where so they can keep feeding the war machine, the haliburtons in Iraq and the elite that is sucking this nation dry.

We the slaves do no need any stinking help from the government, we should just crawl under a rock and die.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   
With all this name calling "social nut case" and ranting about your tax dollars.
I have one thing to say.
Better hope you never have to rely on said social programs.
You never know.
Tomorrow these programs might be the difference between life and death for you and your family.
I've lived long enough to know that everything you have can vanish in an instant.
Yes these programs are exploited by some.
And yes these programs mean life and death for many.
Pride and Greed paints such an ugly picture.


[edit on 24-6-2008 by TimeTracker]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TimeTracker
 




Better hope you never have to rely on said social programs.


Never will. If I do, I will send you a letter and plead my case, maybe you can give me 20% of your income just for the fact that im alive, poor, and to effin lazy to get a job.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
My dear misguided stone hearted friend.
Did you not know that not all poor are lazy?
Did you not know that some are born that way and never seem to rise out of poverty?
Some are truly poor due to no fault of their own?
If not you do now.
Ignorance can be forgiven.
But compassion is in the soul.
Thus endith the lesson.

[edit on 24-6-2008 by TimeTracker]



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TimeTracker
 




Some are truly poor due to no fault of their own?


So because of their inept abilities I, someone who did make something of my self, should in fact pay for the services of those who wallowed in self pitty?

Cold Hearted. So be it. They would sooner see the barrel of my gun before they saw another 20+% of my earnings. To hell with your socialist agenda.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
A few points (before this gets nastier than it already it):

1) The general welfare isn't a catch all for poor programs, charity, or anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

James Madison

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents”

This covers global and domestic aid of all sorts, even grants and loans.

Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

2) The cost of health care seems to be a combination of things. I can't believe that uninsured people are the cause for such high health care. Covered people have increased over the past 50 years decade to decade, yet the cost increases and quality, generally, goes down.

The consistencies are that while cost has gone up, so has government involvement and civil action.

3) As it has been mentioned burdman30ott6, this is a state issue. We could actually get away with having state's with single-payer systems while having others with no government assistance in health care at all.

These forays into federal power normally end poorly in the long run.

4) Health care isn't cheap these days, so not having it is not always a function of being "responsible" or not.

Personally I don't have insurance, nor does my wife. I can afford it for my children but not the adults. I work hard but the economy really isn't as rosy as I'd like and taxes hurt.

Health care isn't an issue, the economy, monetary policy, and taxation are issues.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by TimeTracker
 




Some are truly poor due to no fault of their own?


So because of their inept abilities I, someone who did make something of my self, should in fact pay for the services of those who wallowed in self pitty?

Cold Hearted. So be it. They would sooner see the barrel of my gun before they saw another 20+% of my earnings. To hell with your socialist agenda.


I would just like to make some things clear for you and others who think like you.
Some people who are born poor, can't afford to go to college.
They may have a child or two or three at an early age.
They work hard, but everytime they get a little ahead something happens to knock them back down.
Be it health issues or their car breaks down or they may be laid off.
Not all poor people are inept or lazy.
Some just have very bad luck and no safety net to fall into.
A lot of single mothers fit this profile.
But i find the well to do would rather demonize the poor than sympathize.
It is your prerogitive to do so.
I will not.
And yes i would give you 20%.
It's called Charity.
I do it all the time.



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TimeTracker

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by TimeTracker
 




Some are truly poor due to no fault of their own?


So because of their inept abilities I, someone who did make something of my self, should in fact pay for the services of those who wallowed in self pitty?

Cold Hearted. So be it. They would sooner see the barrel of my gun before they saw another 20+% of my earnings. To hell with your socialist agenda.


I would just like to make some things clear for you and others who think like you.
Some people who are born poor, can't afford to go to college.
They may have a child or two or three at an early age.
They work hard, but everytime they get a little ahead something happens to knock them back down.
Be it health issues or their car breaks down or they may be laid off.
Not all poor people are inept or lazy.
Some just have very bad luck and no safety net to fall into.
A lot of single mothers fit this profile.
But i find the well to do would rather demonize the poor than sympathize.
It is your prerogitive to do so.
I will not.
And yes i would give you 20%.
It's called Charity.
I do it all the time.


I didn't go to college and I do just fine in a technical career where 99% of my peers have a degree, it is not my fault that young women get pregnant and i shouldn't have to pay for that I have payed into unemployment since I started working 20 plus years ago and I have never and will never apply for unemployment, why , because there is always a way to make money always
I have never had a safety net to fall back on either as my family is poor but not having a net to fall in only made me want to succeed that much more, I was bankrupt 3 times before I finally became successful and who knows I may be there again but I will rot long before I take welfare of any kind it is just not the type of person I am give me lemons I'll make lemon aid most people aren't like this and welfare and other charities only make this worse for most..

Think about it if you have no where to go and nothing to fall back on you either starve or get your arse in gear and get something done,, having said all of that there are a few things out there like health care for severely ill or disfigured children I do agree with these..



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by geocom
 


Excellent, you are a true American success story.
Though i was born well to do, i lost half in a divorce.
Never been on wellfare or taken unemployment.
But i have seen (an dated) some who have.
They needed help and i am one who was glad that it was there for them.
I for one don't begrudge the help that is there for them.
As far as being a socialist , maybe you could call me that.
I don't know never thought about it much.
But i do know some take way too much of a hard line when it comes to the poor.
Not going to get in a wellfare arguement, not my intention.
Just wanted to say, think twice before you stereotype all of the poor.
Outa here.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I must add my two cents in at this point. It IS unfortunate that the poor are left with the handouts of an over-extended government but our constitution does NOT give the Fed a carte blanche to spend the taxpayers money. THAT is the only real argument against a Federally mandated Health Care Initiative.

On a side note, the cost of the Iraq war to date would give every American Health coverage for approximately 20 years! If only we could somehow direct all this anti Health Care/Higher taxes rhetoric towards GETTING US OUT of the Middle East, there would be all the money we need with No tax increase.

Just a thought



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   
I agree with TimeTracker to an extent.

I've known people on services like food stamps and disability all their lives.

At the same time, I've also known a couple to use the help to provide for their family and get through school so they CAN get out of the poor slump.
This is what those teenage moms need to do, take the help to feed the offspring and get herself through school. That is it.

There really does need to be a limit on how long someone can collect welfare and food services (but I thought there was already? So why all the demonizing of the poor if it's simply a temporary system to get themselves to self-reliance? I could be wrong)



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
There is a difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

As a working woman for most of my life I paid into Medicare. Medicare was deducted from every pay check during my life.

These payments were for those who had retired. These retired workers had, in their turn, paid for the past generation retirees.

In my turn to retire I do not feel that I am accepting welfare.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by drwizardphd
It's attitudes like that that make me feel like some people belong in the stone age. Welcome to society, buddy.

Actually, he's right & the Founding Forefathers wrote the Constitution for the government to only provide for general Welfare, not specific, individual welfare. The "general Welfare" clause in the Preamble is the single most abused clause in the Constitution, as the government uses it against us "for our own good."
Check out this way of reasoning it:

Source: Not Yours to Give
When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: 'Well friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and---

"Yes I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine, I shall not vote for you again."

"This was a sockdolger...I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.'

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

But an understanding of the constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the honest he is.'

" 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake. Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?

"Well my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did.'

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

At least I agree with you when you say that we have to throw these idiots out of Office.


Originally posted by TimeTracker
And yes i would give you 20%.
It's called Charity.
I do it all the time.

Good for you & I commend you for it. Because charity to the truly unfortunate is up to individuals to donate for, not a function of the federal government to force everybody to donate. There are plenty of worthwhile charity organizations available that do just that very thing...No need (& no Constitutionally delegated authority) for the government to do it too.



Originally posted by Mahree
There is a difference between Medicare and Medicaid.

My wife has been disabled from birth & has Title 19 Medicaid...But this is not a federal issue as Title 19 is funded by the State. But all this does for her is reduce her doctor visits to a $3 co-payment, covers all of her hospital bills & covers her meds down to a $1 or $3 co-payment. She also has food stamps (in her name, not mine) but that's State-funded too.


In this whole debate (& confession), notice that I've emphasized that it's not within federal authority to provide these benefits & they're only being provided because my wife has been disabled from birth.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer



Originally posted by TimeTracker
And yes i would give you 20%.
It's called Charity.
I do it all the time.

Good for you & I commend you for it. Because charity to the truly unfortunate is up to individuals to donate for, not a function of the federal government to force everybody to donate. There are plenty of worthwhile charity organizations available that do just that very thing...No need (& no Constitutionally delegated authority) for the government to do it too.


In this whole debate (& confession), notice that I've emphasized that it's not within federal authority to provide these benefits & they're only being provided because my wife has been disabled from birth.


I agree with you on the above. It doesn't become "charity" when it is taken from us by law. Charity is when we are compassionate about the needs of others and voluntarily try to help them. Generosity to the needy should be a moral decision.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by LostNemesis
I agree with TimeTracker to an extent.

I've known people on services like food stamps and disability all their lives.

At the same time, I've also known a couple to use the help to provide for their family and get through school so they CAN get out of the poor slump.
This is what those teenage moms need to do, take the help to feed the offspring and get herself through school. That is it.

There really does need to be a limit on how long someone can collect welfare and food services (but I thought there was already? So why all the demonizing of the poor if it's simply a temporary system to get themselves to self-reliance? I could be wrong)



LOL! That's what i should have said in the first place.
Thanks.
Just call me a long winded blow hard, not a socialist.


oh and ps. heads up you guys.
There are some super fine poor single mom's out there.
And they are VERY appreciative of any help they can get.
So you see charity work has it's benefits.

But i do help the elderly too.
to kinda offset my sins.


[edit on 25-6-2008 by TimeTracker]



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TimeTracker
I would just like to make some things clear for you and others who think like you.
Some people who are born poor, can't afford to go to college.
They may have a child or two or three at an early age.
They work hard, but everytime they get a little ahead something happens to knock them back down.
Be it health issues or their car breaks down or they may be laid off.
Not all poor people are inept or lazy.
Some just have very bad luck and no safety net to fall into.
A lot of single mothers fit this profile.
But i find the well to do would rather demonize the poor than sympathize.
It is your prerogitive to do so.
I will not.
And yes i would give you 20%.
It's called Charity.
I do it all the time.



Responding inline ...

Some people who are born poor, can't afford to go to college.

- That's why there are scholarships, grants, student aid programs and internships available for those who truly want to go to college. You can't lay the "born poor, can't afford college" rap on people anymore these days. If someone really wants an education, there are plenty of ways they can get help funding it.

They may have a child or two or three at an early age.

- And what's you're point here? As long as the parents take responsibility for their actions there's no problem here.

They work hard, but everytime they get a little ahead something happens to knock them back down.
Be it health issues or their car breaks down or they may be laid off.

- That happens to us all. It's called 'Life'.

Not all poor people are inept or lazy.

- And I don't think anyone here is making a blanket generalization like that

Some just have very bad luck and no safety net to fall into.

- Again, that's called 'Life'.

A lot of single mothers fit this profile.

- I have a lot of respect for single mothers AND single fathers because they have a very tough life ahead of them, working and raising a child(ren). I agree there should be some government aid in these cases until the parent makes a certain amount of money or the children turn 18.

But i find the well to do would rather demonize the poor than sympathize.

- Now you're making a blanket statement, generalizing that the have's in America are unfeeling. If the poor are demonized by anyone it's the media or special interest groups who seek to further their own agenda. Many people, myself included, give to charities straight out of our paychecks. Some of us even sponsor children through programs like Christian Children's Fund.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 

Sorry not taking the bait.
Said what i said and standing by it.
But will ad not all well to do are that way.
But a whole lot are.
SEE YA!



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Well were in the constitution say that the people are slaves to a government that is taxing us dry to support a war machine and a corrupted corporate elite.

Does anybody have found anything like that in the constitution?

How about that little entry that said that we have the right to take back what is ours when the government step over their boundaries.

What is the purpose of a government if it not to provide for the well being, well fare and safety of the people in the nation that is governing, unless it is a totalitarian or dictatorship then they are bound to nothing and nobody.

Oops, sounds like the US government now a days.



posted on Jun, 25 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


excellent post.


on topic , to right
why should americans have to pay for the welbeing of their fellow americans
its blasphemy that a goverment would even dare take money from someone and put it into healthcare. what do these people think they are?

America land of the what?



these people that arguing they have every right for their money shouldnt be used to help that less fortuniate, lets hope no where down the line you come to a position where you or a family member requires help.

people complain that they dont want to help their own citizens yet

the US gives

Israel 2+ billion a year in Weapons Aid
Jordon+ couple million in weapons Aid
Pakistan+ couple million in weapons Aid
and other countries

and thats just arming countries forgeting other free Cash

now if the americans are so happy about paying for the armed forces of most countries why they f**** do you people get up in arms about helping your own people?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join