Only In America Would People Complain About Paying For Healthcare

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I'll take that as you cant find any law that was violated, and you want me to do the work for you.

Very typical for people who make that claim.

No sovereign nation need UN approvial to go to war.

No law was violated, hence your claim is completely wrong.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by brainwrek]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Well, I did not sponsor, nor do I support those two wars you're mentioning.

And, personally, I believe the Healthcare Reform is complete horse puckey.

We do not need the revamping of how insurance is done nor do we need to be fined if we do not purchase it, that's about as ignorant as making someone pay for something that is already free, not that Healthcare is free, just an analogy.

I believe the entire Healthcare Industry needs to be regulated, so we do not need the insurance.

Period.

In other words, I see this bogus insurance as just another shakedown, a means to keep prices high, and make you pay a middleman, to get the cost lowered.

Did they not once have a term for that when it was illegal?

Oh yes, a protection racket, so to me, the Healthcare Reform Act, fit into the R.I.C.O. Act.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO) is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.

RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970).

RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968.

While its intended use was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its application has been more widespread.

It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico.

The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.

G. Robert Blakey remains the country's foremost expert on RICO; his former student Michael Goldsmith also gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading RICO experts.

Then again, I see the entire insurance need, car insurance, to health insurance, as extortion.

Because the law tells us we need something, which is usually done through a means where Government officials receive some sort of kickback, through special interest groups.

Or even lobbying firms, legal bribery, if you will.

Quote from : Wikipedia : Extortion

Extortion, outwresting, or/and exaction is a criminal offense which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion.

Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection.

Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups.

The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense.

Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense.

Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force, but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.

In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of "interstate commerce."

Extortion requires that the individual sent the message "willingly" and "knowingly" as elements of the crime.

The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In "strong arm" robbery, the offender takes goods from the victim with use of immediate force.

In "robbery" goods are taken or an attempt is made to take the goods against the will of another—with or without force.

A bank robbery or extortion of a bank can be committed by a letter handed by the criminal to the teller.

In extortion, the victim is threatened to hand over goods, or else damage to their reputation or other harm or violence against them may occur.

Under federal law extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon.

A key difference is that extortion always involves a written or verbal threat whereas robbery can occur without any verbal or written threat (refer to U.S.C. 875 and U.S.C. 876).

The term extortion is often used metaphorically to refer to usury or to price-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion.

It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences.

For example, certain lawsuits, fees for services such as banking, automobile insurance, gasoline prices, and even taxation, have all been labeled "legalized extortion" by people with various social or political beliefs.

Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion.

Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc.

Odd, is it not, that this definition fits so appropriately, when our politicians do not listen to us, do not represent us, nor will they actually follow the proper system of checks and balances, and push through a law us Americans do not want.

When these idiots, politicians, went to local town halls, they could not even speak to what was written into the Healthcare Reform Act, because like all legislation, it is more often than not, written by those special interest groups, or lobbyists, and that the American people actually knew more about it then the politicians who have sold us out on the HealthSCARE THREAT, a scare tactic.

Nothing more, nothing less, a tactic, because instead of actually regulating the entire Healthcare Industry, then forcing these salacious bastards to reduce over all costs, we are forced to pay a middleman, who can deny us coverage.

When it costs $10,000 to have a baby, or buy insurance, and the costs are reduced, this is nothing more than extortion, through legal means, something Washington D.C. knows well how to do, to write in their kickbacks.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by I think Im normal


Thank you for answering my questions. I'm beginning to understand what's taking place here.

As stated, that bill is crap, I'm not denying that. I'm not really speaking about that bill in general.

I just meant health care in general.

The wars, I see your point, it is a fresh issue, but it's an on going issue. Mostly every President int he last 50 years has tried to do some form of Health Care and it never seems to get anywhere.

As for the taxes which come along with the forced purchase of Health Care Coverage, well that's just wrong and anybody can see that.

dude your so funny complaing you say man health insurance runs ooo 650$ to 800$ a month now thats the reasion so manny dont have it .
now by what i read in this bill that cost (saying my country has free health care is a oxce moron) over 1000$ a month a incress of 300 to 400$ now just were do you think this moneys comming from???
Free health care says you lolol your is takin out of taxes as well im sure you pay for it to but in your case its running mabby 100$ a month and yet your money is accutly worth more then ours .
man that my friend is more then a 150K home runs a month.
untill the goverment and the phyarmisys and doctors cute out frud and corruption in our health care system the cost will remain high.
the md charges 15$ for 1 tylona

[edit on 22-3-2010 by xxcalbier]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


You are assuming that everyone who cannot afford health care is spending that amount of money on junk food and such. I assure you that you may be wrong in some instances, but keep on lumping everyone together.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas


I'm impressed by that answer.

I've gotten a better understanding of what's been going on. As stated, I'm Canadian, things are very different here.

I didn't understand to scope of who is being affected and how this is not helping Americans but the special interest groups and the companies who caused this mess.

Just another bail out for industry who abuses America.

~Keeper

reply to post by AHostileMe


I was speaking about Middle Class America. Obviously there are those who work below the poverty line or just above who can't afford these things.

I am attempting to lump everybody together.

~Keeper

reply to post by xxcalbier


Actually I don't know what it costs us as stated it's all intertwined with our tax system.

It's not 100$ a month though I'm sure of that.

~Keeper

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Just another bail out for industry who abuses America.

Bingo!

If politicians really cared about providing us with affordable insurance than they would have addressed the issues that are increasing our health cost.

They wouldn't care about big pharma and health insurance company. Instead they made deals with them. Hell, just the facts that they had to bribe their own to vote for this mess should be alarming by itself.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Here's the the thing. You all SO worried about paying for anything these days in the states. You would rather fund wars then have a healthy population.

I do not support these unjust wars, and I have been protesting them since we entered Iraq when I was 17. Honestly though most people in the world will only stand up for something when they are directly effected, hence that massive amounts of anger seen towards this bill(soon to be law). On the note of our anger at paying for intrusive new government programs I have to ask...Have you seen the downward sliding state of our economy?

Perhaps I am biased, I have had healthcare since the day I was born, never had to argue about it. Never really saw the cost of it as it's factored into our tax system so therefore I never had to give a doctor a cent in my wallet.

Just because you don't pay the doctor that day or don't really see the cost doesn't mean that you don't pay for health care. It more than likely means the politicians have gotten better at hiding the corruption and cost of the program.

This is about the fact that the American People would rather spend 1000$ dollars a year on junkfood and movies than health care. This is significant philosophical and psychological problem if you ask me.

Most people I know that spend thousands a year on material things already have health coverage. The only things this law will change for those citizens is their choice in the matter.

It will have a much greater impact on those just above the income bracket, not to mention the massive amounts of intrusion coming for all citizens of the US. All this is said without starting an argument on whether or not the Feds actually have the legal authority to enact this kind of legislation(here's a hint:Check out the US constitution, it's meant to be an instruction manual for the US government).

So my question is simple. If a good bill were introduced, one that actually made sense and helped most Americans get good coverage while preventing industry abuses, would you still whine about being FORCED to pay for it?

True health care reform would be a simple single payer system, combined with heavy tort reform. The new law has neither of these things...all this piece of s*** does is raise taxes on most everyone, force all of those taxed to then purchase insurance at gunpoint, and provide a few unlucky citizens with another way to get health care(as there are already several in this country).

I know that health care in this country can be had. My brother was forced to have part of his liver removed, did so with no insurance thanks to the hospital and several charities in the local area.

You should all thrilled that they are at least attempting to rectify the problem and are having a debate about it.

Unconstitutional, unethical legislation is not attempt to rectify the greed in the insurance industry. It only serves to inflame it. And as the speaker said last night around 10:30pm "The time for debate is over"...

American's by nature are more conservative than our neighbors. Since our beginning we've had a natural distrust for government which obviously continues to this day.

So why am I opposed to this legislature?

It almost costs a trillion dollars, add that onto our massive deficit plus two bills on top of that, that have cost almost a trillion each. It's unsustainable, America is at it's weakest point right now and passing a trillion dollar bill is something that should be reserved for better times.

Also from my understating the main problem with the private insurers was the fact that they were denying coverage to some people who had paid the premiums for years. I think this could easily fixed with a law telling the companies to cover people who have paid their dues.

And another problem is that not everyone is covered, but people got to understand that health insurance or any other kind of insurance didn't always exist. For years people paid for care out of their own pockets, why don't we do that now? We use insurance for everything, a small doctors visit for a cold or flu. Insurances original context was for emergencies, just like Auto Insurance. We don't have our Auto insurance pay for every time we have to have a tune up, only for accidents - which is why it's required by most STATES, not the Feds.


[edit on 22-3-2010 by asmall89]

reply to post by tothetenthpower


If I had the choice, I would NOT fund a single bullet for a war. I have no choice. Do not tell me I rather fund a war than health car.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

 

I'm impressed by that answer.

I've gotten a better understanding of what's been going on. As stated, I'm Canadian, things are very different here.

I didn't understand to scope of who is being affected and how this is not helping Americans but the special interest groups and the companies who caused this mess.

Just another bail out for industry who abuses America.

~Keeper

This is nothing more than leveraged blackmail against the citizens, on a grand scale.

Force us to purchase something, some of us do not need, nor want, period.

I get sick about once every five years, and each and every time I've been injured, it was on the job, or in my car, and I have Workers Compensation at work, and I have Car Insurance while in my car, so where exactly is my need?

At home, I do absolutely nothing which will put my life in jeopardy, to need Healthcare.

I use NyQuil or Alka-Seltzer Cold Plus, or even Thera-Flu when necessary.

And I'm supposed to be fined if I do not purchase this Healthcare?

I'll tell you what, let me put a rattlesnake up my butt, and see which is easier.

Me putting it up there, or them pulling the fine out of my wallet, I know which will be easier.

I'm not paying this extortion any more than I would allow someone to blackmail me.

Blackmail : Keep Your Friends Close, Keep Your Enemies Closer, The Threat of Subversion Through Fear

If anyone has actually read the Healthcare Reform Act, and I have, it syncs up with the Real ID Act, and the entire Bailout Package.

Know what's hidden amongst all the legalese and Government speak?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/338cc3d8b0fa.jpg[/atsimg]

That device and legality in order to push it through are buried deeply, like a tick, within all of those, but because people are so easily pushed apart, they never find it.

If only people would do something, politically, they might be able to take control of it, and or stop it, but corporations like Verichip and Digital Angel, are and have been a part of this Healthcare Reform initiative, through many convoluted means to sell a "security" for Medical Records.

Or even one corporation, called Destron Fearing, which pushes it through animals, farming to pets, 40 countries already.

Quote from : Destron Fearing

Destron Fearing is a global leader in innovative animal identification.

With presence in over 40 countries worldwide we seek to provide real world ID solutions to match the ever increasing complexity and opportunities related to animal identification.

Since 1945 we have provided innovative products addressing the needs of livestock producers, companion animal owners, horse owners, wildlife managers and government agencies.

Destron Fearing provides a full complement of radio frequency identification products and software solutions to automate the collection of critical livestock production and carcass information.

Individual and herd information can then be easily transferred between all parties involved in the production and retail of meat products.

Information sharing allows the food industry to meet the discriminating demands of the market place.

And I do not have children, yet I'm responsible for paying for other people's children's education too, something I have never supported, if I had children, I might not care.

Oh yeah, I no longer have a home, because the Government stole the money through the Bailout, and I'm homeless.

So, exactly how am I going to afford this crap Healthcare, when I can barely pay for car insurance to go to work, and food to eat?

[edit on 22-3-2010 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

reply to post by joey_hv


You are kidding right? Backs not broken? or you willingly bear the burden still of the the items below (and soooooo many more injustices that have been put upon the American people and others).

Maybe Americans have been tempered by fire through the experiences you have gone through of the last 15-20 years so that when Venezuela/Columbia et al turn into your next Vietnam you will actually collectively as a population do something about it.

1) Bush Junior election farce/scandal
2) 911
3) Patriot Act
4) Multi-spectrum Wars under the guise of bringing freedom/democracy
5) Downfall of economy through the sub-prime bet
6) Your major financial institutions being bailed out to alleviate temporary cashflow problem and rather than trickling that cash down to grassroots economy where needed, many of the banks pay it back pronto and return to awarding multi-million $$$ bonuses.

Laughable - your backs are broken and you don't even realize it

Bravo

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Just because you don't pay the doctor that day or don't really see the cost doesn't mean that you don't pay for health care.

OK...one more time for our American brethren...take out the profit motive and you have immediately saved...what...30%?

Our standard of living is at least as good as yours, we are not getting turfed out of our homes due to crooked banks...yes, we pay in our taxes, but that doesn't keep us from living a good life. And that's a good life judged by Western standards.

Do what you want, just don't try to set us up as an example of your own country's moral failings on this issue.

It more than likely means the politicians have gotten better at hiding the corruption and cost of the program.

No, it means that I was cured of cancer for $32 out of pocket.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
And I do not have children, yet I'm responsible for paying for other people's children's education too, something I have never supported, if I had children, I might not care.

Have you ever considered that those kids are the collective investment in your future? That the future of the country will end up in their hands, and they are the ones that require the tools to pay for your pension, health care, etc?

[edit on 22-3-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Quite often, the debate is not over taking care of one's fellows, it is over which branch of government has responsibility for the issue, and whether it is within the purview of government, as set out by the founding fathers...to address the issue at all.

I have been reading all I can on this as I too am trying to understand why the negativity. Just in reading as many comments on ATS and in the media, I have to disagree with what I am seeing.

I find that there are many more against this bill as they don't want to pay for someone else. I am not saying this is everyone at all, but more like the majority of what I am reading.

It almost seems that quite a few don't realize that they could be "someone else" pretty dam quick, and it's time to realize that it's just the right thing to do as a country to make sure everyone is looked after. Especially in healthcare.

Just what I am observing anyways.

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
Oh yeah, I no longer have a home, because the Government stole the money through the Bailout, and I'm homeless.

Are you saying the Government just just came and repossessed your home, and threw you out? That's really something! I want to hear more about this.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
Just because you don't pay the doctor that day or don't really see the cost doesn't mean that you don't pay for health care.

OK...one more time for our American brethren...take out the profit motive and you have immediately saved...what...30%?

I agree with you here, as I said in my post...single payer health care combined with strong tort reform. That takes much of the greedy swine out of health care.

Our standard of living is at least as good as yours, we are not getting turfed out of our homes due to crooked banks...yes, we pay in our taxes, but that doesn't keep us from living a good life. And that's a good life judged by Western standards.

While I agree that Canada is a lovely country the US has a different set of priorities in regards to our government. Level of comfort, quality of life, security...none of these things is near as important as freedom in this land.

Do what you want, just don't try to set us up as an example of your own country's moral failings on this issue.

I am confused by this one... what did I say to set up Canada as an example of the USA's moral failings?

No, it means that I was cured of cancer for $32 out of pocket.

They can CURE cancer in Canada!? Now that is a step forward!

Just kidding, but I get what some of what you are saying about our busted medical industry.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Shark_Feeder]

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder
While I agree that Canada is a lovely country the US has a different set of priorities in regards to our government. Level of comfort, quality of life, security...none of these things is near as important as freedom in this land.

"Freedom' is a seriously relative concept, and I would venture to say that we live a life a lot more free than yours...our government interferes a lot less with us than yours seems to, and I do get a little freaked when visiting the States and seeing Orwellian signs telling me to stay alert for bad guys, that sort of thing.

Do what you want, just don't try to set us up as an example of your own country's moral failings on this issue.
I am confused by this one... what did I say to set up Canada as an example of the USA's moral failings?

Sorry...I generalise...weary of taking shots at how bad we have it with our system. No offence.

They can CURE cancer in Canada!?

Now that is a step forward!

They did mine...early detection, and the $32 paid for parking at the cancer clinic.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
And I do not have children, yet I'm responsible for paying for other people's children's education too, something I have never supported, if I had children, I might not care.

Have you ever considered that those kids are the collective investment in your future? That the future of the country will end up in their hands, and they are the ones that require the tools to pay for your pension, health care, etc?

[edit on 22-3-2010 by JohnnyCanuck]

No, I do not consider that as a viable means to coerce me into paying something I will not gain from, plain and simple, if someone has children, it should come out of their income, not the collective of the entire country.

If I have children, I would pay it, if I do not have children, I see it as something that will not do anything more than require my funding other people's children through taxation, period.

I do not believe in the collective taxation of people to pay for something I do not support.

I do not support war, needless war, often, I should not be required to pay for it.

I do not support abortion, but have zero issue if someone else wants to murder their child, do it on their own dime, not mine, and if it has a heartbeat and pulse, it is a child, in the uterus, not just extra tissue, like people try to twist it.

I do not support the needless War on Drugs, because if the C.I.A. is going to support criminal organizations to infiltrate it into America, and the D.E.A. is going to catch it, this is using illegal action, to commit "legal action".

A farce, nothing more, because commission of an illegal action, to force a legal action, is still illegal.

And this is about foreign and domestic policy, not supporting drugs, or abortion, or war, because I know the foreign and domestic policy inside and out.

Healthcare is just one more domestic policy I do not support, just like those others are either foreign or domestic policy, I do not support, I know policy, quite well.

I follow policy, procedure, and protocol, and I know when a policy is being used to cover criminal negligence, criminal culpability, or criminal collusion, which is what the Healthcare Reform Act is in this instance, criminal collusion.