It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Are HC Opponents Informed or Misinformed?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

In no way do those examples compare to health care.

Obviously we have very very different views on the role of a government. I'm not OK with the government controlling most aspects of my life, and I won't accept "that's just the way it is." That's not the way it's supposed to be. I don't want someone holding my hand telling me whats best when I am fully capable of making those decisions on my own.

Don't get me wrong, I do want affordable health care for everyone, but the angle that the government is taking is not the right one.

I think we are headed down a very slippery slope when it comes to government involvement in our daily lives, and it needs to stop now.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:07 PM

Originally posted by oppaperclip
So you're fine with people being fined for not buying something mandated by the government?

For healthcare...Yes...I'm fine with that. Because it is the only possible way (if you guys don't want a public option) to eliminate pre-existing conditions and get rid of yearly and lifetime insurance caps.

If you have another way of getting rid of these two things...let's hear them.

hat if they decide to mandate amerikans buy GM, or make certain hair cuts mandatory like North Korea?

I haven't played the "what if" game since I was a child. But I'll play along..."what if" they don't mandate us to buy GM??? My argument is just as valid as yours.

How about them lying and saying this will save us money. Really a trillion dollar program will save us money?

You have no proof that they are lying or that this actually won't save us money. The only official numbers we have are from the CBO...and they say it will save us money. Now you can trust a non-biased, non-partisan organization like the CBO...or you can trust the Republican's own calculated know...the group that HATES the president. It's your choice...which numbers would a logical person trust?

Some how socialism has become all the rage in Amerika and I somehow think it has to do with this Politically correct touchy feely bull crap.

Would you care to tell me how this is socialist at all??? Specific examples would be nice.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:14 PM
reply to post by autowrench

Why do you think the "We the People" power is a moot point? Both the 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment specifically name the people, one for possessing rights not enumerated by Constitution, the second for possessing power not transferred from the people to the state, or federal government.

A long held right of the people has been the doctrine of informed consent, upheld as law in the very same way the SCOTUS upheld the right to privacy with Roe v. Wade, in several Cases before the Court including Cruzan v. Director MDH, which astonishingly upheld both states rights and individual rights in the same ruling!

That there are several SCOTUS rulings that stand as strong evidence suggesting this fiasco of legislation will be struck down as unconstitutional, if not repealed before, but that is just coming from an informed point of view. While The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding governments interests, it also has a long history of telling the government when it is time to butt the hell out.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Jean Paul Zodeaux]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
If you want to keep your current HC plan, you're allowed to.

You are incorrect. The rates will be so outrageous that we wont be able to.

The taxes will take care of all of that.

If someone wants the best medical care to be (at best) that in a VA hospital, let them knock themselves out dude. I prefer real doctors that have a capitalist mindset of "if I do good work, people will request me".

Not uniformed. I've had plenty of friends go to VA. Most are cesspools.

Less government is what we need. Not more. Show me ONE thing the government does better than private sector. Just one.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:25 PM
This sounds good,doesn't it ? (NOT!)

4. Will this plan ration care through waiting lists?

What the Bill Says:

(2) INSUFFICIENT FUNDS— If the Secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the Secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists.

Evaluation of the Passage:
1. This section establishes a “temporary” “High-Risk Pool” program, which is to operate until the Health Exchanges are established. Meanwhile the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide who gets care and who goes on a waiting list.

2. This determination will be made on the basis of “aggregate” budget. The bill recognizes that there are only three ways to control the budget: reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists. The Secretary’s bureaucrats will control all three.

3. Proponents of the bill will claim that this particular program will be temporary. But this next passage shows that under this plan, waiting lists will become the norm....

And wait til they come back and say,"Well,we don't have the money!"...(Unless you're one of the elite who have exempted themselves from this coverage!)

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:25 PM
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

In a way the healthcare reform panic reminds me a lot of the hysteria before Obama got elected, everyone accusing him of being a communist or a Muslim or whatever. It's just a whole lot of panic over nothing.

Will the Bill be bad for America? Who knows, we will have to wait and see and if it turns out to hurt us we will have to do some more reforming.

People sit and complain that Congress doesn't do anything, and what happens when they finally pass a Bill? People start running around acting like the sky is falling because something might, duh dun duh, ACTUALLY CHANGE.

If the change is for the good we will keep it. If the change is for the bad we will change it.

They act like there's a clause in the Bill that officially changes Americas name to Nazi Germany. This Bill is tame compared to some of the moves made under Bush. Our Constitution is already in tatters.. did some people actually expect Obama to rebuild it? He might be a shiny new puppet who actually knows how to speak in a sentence but that doesn't mean he is still just as much an automaton of the system.

Most of them are misinformed for sure, but who has time to read the actual Bill? I honestly don't think most of Congress read it either...

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:26 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

" Would you care to tell me how this is socialist at all??? Specific examples would be nice. "

Because it is " They " who are Dictating the terms of this HCB , and not " We" who in a Free Society, have a Right to have our say by Voting on it . Remove the process of hearing the Peoples voice , and Socialism takes it's Place .

[edit on 1-4-2010 by Zanti Misfit]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:28 PM

Originally posted by de Thor
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

In no way do those examples compare to health care.

Obviously we have very very different views on the role of a government. I'm not OK with the government controlling most aspects of my life,

The government already does.

And yes, that's the way it is. Without government, we'd as a nation would collapse. Not saying I'm pro government but let's use some logic here...

As for the other poster, you're already forced to abide the laws declared by the government.

As your president said before, it's not that Americans don't want insurance, they can't afford it.

Should citizens be fined for not having it? That's up for debate. Are they actually going to be punished for not having it? That's also up for debate actually as the bill won't even go into effect for a While. And we all know, a lot could happen then.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:32 PM
This is how bad I see it becoming!

Programs like Social Security and Medicare typically are eliminated in these national default situations.

Is the goal to force the US into the same kinds of IMF austerity programs that have caused riots in so many other nations?

Certainly, the US, which has been at the lead in pushing for these measures elsewhere, would not be able to escape having its own medicine applied to it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

"In economics, austerity is when a national government reduces its spending in order to pay back creditors. Austerity is usually required when a government's fiscal deficit spending is felt to be unsustainable.

Development projects, welfare programs and other social spending are common areas of spending for cuts. In many countries, austerity measures have been associated with short-term standard of living declines until economic conditions improved once fiscal balance was achieved (such as in the United Kingdom under Margaret Thatcher, Canada under Jean Chrétien, and Spain under González).

Private banks, or institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), may require that a country pursues an 'austerity policy' if it wants to re-finance loans that are about to come due. The government may be asked to stop issuing subsidies or to otherwise reduce public spending. When the IMF requires such a policy, the terms are known as 'IMF conditionalities'.

Austerity programs are frequently controversial, as they impact the poorest segments of the population and often lead to a wider separation between the rich and poor. In many situations, austerity programs are imposed on countries that were previously under dictatorial regimes, leading to criticism that populations are forced to repay the debts of their oppressors.

This "health scare" will force everyone onto Medicare,outlawing any other insurance or care other than what the government declares acceptable.

Then,they can pull the rug out from under us all.

That's why I feel Obama is promising everything under the sun,because he knows he won't have to deliver any of it. The IMF can be the bad guy. In destroying the country,it seems to fit in with that goal.

[edit on 1-4-2010 by On the Edge]

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

No , buying Health Care Insurance should be a Choice Americans freely make concerning their bodies . This Issue is as simple as that . Where is the Choice in this HCB ? There is None

Like I have said have a choice...if you are so opposed to buying health care insurance...then you don't have to...but you pay a fine because when you do need medical care...and you can't pay for the hospital writes it off...those fines you paid will help offset that write off.

And the "choice" isn't just about you...Because when you decide to not to buy directly affecst me by increasing the costs I have to pay.

It doesn't seem so complicated to me.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by On the Edge

Exactly force everyone on a medicare medicaid type system which is BROKEN...

I work everyday with Medicaid and its going BROKE, states all over the US are taking hits because medicaid cant afford to pay its outstanding balances on reimbursement.......seriously, and you want the government running YOUR healthcare? No thanks, im witness every day to how they run the business and trust dont want that alternative

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:39 PM
reply to post by Rynocerous7

Regardless of the bills content or lack thereof we simply cannot afford this bill.

Says who? Not the CBO...the CBO says it will save us money down the road. So do you not trust the CBO?

We have been told and have seen with our own eyes that the country is either going broke or is already broke. Tacking on an extra $870 billion (probably more) onto an already unsustainable national debt could be the final nail in the coffin for this country. The price alone is enough to turn people against it.

And if we do nothing it will make it even worse. Like I you trust the CBO that said it will reduce the debt over 10-20 years? What is the alternative...please don't think starting over is an option...the republicans want NO reform at all.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Because it is " They " would are Dictating the terms of this HCB , and not " We" who in a Free Society, have a Right to have our say by Voting on it . Remove the process of hearing the Peoples voice , and Socialism takes it's Place .

First of all..."Because it is" isn't a reason.

Second of all....What? When have the general public EVER voted on anything. That isn't how it works...never has. "We" the people...elect our congressmen...and they vote on the issues. If they don't vote how you would like them vote them out. "They" always dictate the terms of any bill...that is what they are elected for...nothing socialist about it.

Socialism has nothing to do with "voice of the people" anyway...please look up the definition of socialism.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask

It is against the constitution to mandate that anyone buy any good or service. They cant do it....period . . .

Technically...the federal government won't mandate you to buy the insurance...the federal government will mandate the states to mandate you to buy insurance. And have a choice...if you don't want to buy something from the insurance a fine.

punishable by increasing fines and jail time......

Im sorry, but if i dont want to be on insurance, i WONT be, and you arent going to punish me for NOT being on it, by making me buy it for someone else.........period . . .

I see I'm going to get tired of saying this...but here it goes.

Well if you don't want to be on directly affects me. When you will need medical care and you have no insurance and can't pay for it...that directly affects me. So paying the fine will be used to help offset those costs that the hospital will have to write off. you have health insurance right now?

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:02 PM
Why did you start this thread? Obviously you already have your mind made up on where you stand and dont care to hear the opinions of anyone else. There are several valid arguments that have been made yet you refuse to acknowledge any of them.

How bout this. How do you think that our insurance costs will go down with 30 million more people being covered but not paying anything. Someone is going to have to pay for all those people. And since you want to talk about eating better, hasnt there been lots of studies that show that poor people tend to eat more fatty foods, and more fast foods? Just google it and you will find tons of articles. So now we will be covering 30 million more people who dont eat right so they probably have more health problems that will cost more money to the rest of us. ( i know this is a generalization but the op was making such a big point on eating better i thought id throw it in).

Do you know why insurance companies currently might not cover someone with pre existing conditions? Because its cheaper and saves them money. Now that the government is telling them they have to cover these people, their costs will go up, which will be passed on to the rest of us. By the way I am in favor of covering people with pre exisiting conditions by the way. So now they cant turn anyone down. What does this mean exactly? Does this mean that people with pre existing conditions will get the same coverage as a healthly person? Probably not. They will probably get insurance but wont be able to afford to use it. I believe this same thing is going on in Massachusetts right now. I read somewhere (too lazy to look it up) that something like 15% of those who have insurance now in Mass cannot afford to use it. Plus the Mass healthcare system is being propped up by federal dollars. Well who is going to prop up the national healthcare program when the money runs out? Either the tax payer, or they will just print more money.

It does not stop with costs being passed on to us by insurance companies. ATT just said that this will cost them 1 billion. Verizon said that it will cost them 970 million. Now we can take this figures with a grain of salt (just like the CBO figures as well). These figures could be exaggerated and could just be the employer upset about the bill so they made this figure up, but I have to believe that if a company is now required by law to cover their employees, their costs will rise. So now, not only is my insurance going to go up, now i have to worry about my phone, cell phone, internet and cable bill going up, and thats just two companies. Think of how that will effect every aspect of your life and everything that you buy.

Now with all of the costs of everything going up, how do I as a lower middle class citizen survive? My costs go up because we wanted to take care of the less fortunate, but now I cant afford to take care of my own family so now I have to get help too. Again, I know this example is a bit drastic, but no one really knows how this will play out and maybe it could effect people like this.

I think the one thing that has most people worried is the uncertainty. No one knows how this will play out and that worries alot of people, especially in a time like this when so many are barely making it. Theres so much room for stuff to go wrong that it almost outweighs what can go right. I hope I am wrong, I really do, but it is in our nature to worry, especially about something that will affect everything we know.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by GorehoundLarry

So ATS, right here, inform me why you are against (and why I should be as well) against this HC Bill. Please, educate me and perhaps others on the matter. I don't think I've seen one healthy conversation or debate on the matter without name calling (and yes, I've contributed to the name calling, I won't deny it)

I have a few reasons. Before i get to that, i do believe that we need to overhaul the system used to mete out health care. It is broken. But its broken because of greed, and the insurance companies are scapegoated for the doctors (doctors are always given preferential treatment).

My reasons for being against the Health Care Reform that was passed:

- I see how the VA system and Medicare are run. The Medicare system is the single largest denier of health claims in the US. I don't expect that we will see the US Gov do a better job of managing MY health. I will get back to Medicare in a minute.

- It doesn't address the greed of the doctors inflating health care prices. 10 years ago a General Practitioner got about 60 bucks a visit. Now it is between 160 and 200. That is enormous. In response to the increase in these costs (not to mention exhorbitant new procedures and equipment that drive cost), my insurance rates have increased, as well as my share of what i pay. How does the HC bill address this issue?

- Doctors are not the only blame. There are lawyers, too. The tort system needs to have caps and limits applied. Humans make mistakes. Some level of understanding needs to be applied. Rare mistakes by doctors must be tolerated, and we must all understand that there are risks associated with health care. The alternative is dying...that is a risk too. The system should assess steps taken to mitigate risk before deciding on the level of responsibility for mistakes.

- Insurance is an investment. You pay into a system that you can draw on for your health expenses when needed. If you are able to get insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions, that allows people to only sign up for insurance when their health fails (like car insurance...they get it only when they have to pass inspection, get a license, or registration). This will drive costs up further, as it must be offset. Either costs will go up, or benefits will degrade. There MUST be a catch in the system to keep people from getting insurance only when they are sick.

- the government should not mandate that i purchase something, and then tax it. That sounds like something some crazy 13th century European King would try. I mean, right now i get a tax break for insurance premiums...under the "new and improved" system instead of a break i get a bill? WTH?

- all of the above is nothing compared to this: this is going to be like sand in the gears of the American business machine. I manage a nice, 4 star hotel. Having to provide insurance to housekeepers who work 5-6 hours a day is going to drive my rates up by about 40%. Now, apply that same type of scenario across all industries. ATT just announced that 1bil offset they are going to have to find. Your grandma at the nursing home? How will you pay for the premiums of all the staff there? Every single service sector business will be impacted severely. Prepare to pay 7 bucks for a Big Mac. Welcome back 1978.

Now, i am sure there are other things...but i am tired and want to sleep.

To "fix" healthcare, i think we should tie cost to Medicare. I would rather see Medicare go away, but since it is there we can try to fix it and use it to drive private industry. But if you don't get the price schedules under control, nothing will make it better and the middle and lower classes will still feel the squeeze.

A simple solution would be to:

1. Require all doctors to accept Medicare patients as a condition of practicing medicine in the US.

2. Set prices in Medicare to pay a reasonable price. I am not talking sweetheart deals, and i am not meaning to screw the doctors. I am talking about office visits for Family Medicine costing around 80 bucks for the 15 minutes of pseudo attention. One you set the payment schedule in Medicare, it becomes the standard for the industry and will allow the insurance companies to calibrate to this schedule.

3. Provide cash incentives to recipients for keeping their health costs down. For example, an otherwise healthy 70 year old on Medicare that presents with complaints of gout pain does not need a Pulminary Function Test. There is no reason that the patient can't be expected to take an active role and inform themselves on their healthcare options.

Once you can apply some simple controls to how Medicare pays out, and tie it into an official standard of payment, you can address various forms of fraud (possibly by employing the "cash bonus" system to patients who can identify fraudulent activity? Once again, patients should be expected to be active in their healthcare, especially when it is free on the government dime).

If fraud can be gotten under some control, then we can look towards finding a way to provide health care to everyone. Remember, we already do it via emergency rooms and free clinics. If we can trim enough fat in the system, we might just be able to find a way to afford it without huge cost burdens being placed on business and citizen alike.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:11 PM

Let’s just look at one, and perhaps, the biggest farce in the Reid instructions to the CBO. Assume no Doc-fix going forward. The Doc-fix is Congresses annual cancelation of the automatic reduction in fees doctors are to be paid for caring for Medicare patients. The so-called deficit reducing Senate healthcare bill required the CBO to assume that henceforth there would be no more waivers of the reductions in fees to doctors and hospitals. Such an assumption is pure legislative chicanery. In fact, a law designed to “control” Medicare costs was enacted during the Clinton Administration in 1997 that required Medicare to slash payments to doctors each year by whatever percentage the increase in medical costs out paces a pre-determined level established by formula. Every year the doctors protest, as they should, and every year, with the single exception of 2002, Congress has waived the reduction in payments. In fact, as we’ve reported previously, Congress cancelled the reductions scheduled to go into effect next week at the very time they were writing legislation, the financing of which, was predicated on enforcing those very same reductions. This was deceit of historical proportions. It would also be insane public policy.

Furthermore, during the next ten years, when an estimated seventy million baby boomers will enter the ranks of the Medicare eligible, the CBO was also required to assume that there would be a half-trillion-dollar reduction in Medicare costs. How is this cost savings going to be realized in the face of such increased demand for medical service? Increased efficiency and reductions in waste and fraud, we are told. If that is so why haven’t we eliminated such vast waste and fraud already? Then there’s the matter of the increased cost of providing care (think additional doctors, clinics, tests, etc.) for the estimated 30 million additional people who will be covered under the new healthcare plan. obama-wednesday-september-9-2009

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

No you dont have a choice, pay a fine, go to jail or buy gov insurance.....once again thats mandating that you buy a good or service, and thats against the constitution....

Do some research and reading , learn it......

LoL EXACTLY it directly affects, you, so instead they will mandate that EVERYONE must be on it, so we will pay for EVERYONES insurance...

I fail to see how people dont understand the concept of how much this is going to drive up taxes and the national debt......not to mention its unconstitutional.......end of story.....

I dont want to pay for insurance for someone else, and i shouldnt have to....i dont expect anyone to pay for MINE......and yes i do have health insurance.....

IF you went to college and were graduating top of the class w honors, do you think it would be fair to take your grade lvl down to average so that the other people in your class that didnt work as hard could share in a good GPA?

This robbinhood mentality is out of control........all the while they lead you a long, playing on your good merrits and your want to help people....and youre to busy to see the knives under your throats......

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That there are several SCOTUS rulings that stand as strong evidence suggesting this fiasco of legislation will be struck down as unconstitutional, if not repealed before, but that is just coming from an informed point of view.

Then we shall see what the SCOTUS says...if it makes it that far...which I don't think it will.

BUT if it does...the most they can do is strike down the mandate. And if and when that is done...then it would be a disaster...because the pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps would still be eliminated. So Insurance companies would still have a small pool of people...not the large pool that is required to put these items in place. So either premiums will skyrocket and only the rich will be insured...or insurance companies will all go bankrupt. If the premiums comes the public option from the government. If insurance companies fail...then in comes single payer. But not before a very bad time for the American people where more will die because of no insurance.

The irony is that the public option or single payer will be ushered in by the same people that fear both of these...republicans/conservatives.

posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 11:17 PM
reply to post by felonius

You are incorrect. The rates will be so outrageous that we wont be able to.

That is to show some proof???

Because my opinion is that rates won't be outrageous...see...we all have one...who's is right?

*NOTE* I'm not really making the above claim...just pointing out how invalid your argument is.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in