RR Rated M For Mature
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 455 ONLINE 18 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]579 viewsPOST REPLY
Revolution Models . CarbonXtreme . Midland Helicopters

.
.
Off Topics News & Politics > The liberal mind?
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum

Quote 
I don't think any liberal is suggesting that everyone should be entitled to a a nice car and house. However, in my opinion healthcare should be a basic right not a luxury. There are intellectual arguments to be made for this but to me it is simply a moral issue. How can you deny someone their health because you don't feel that they have worked hard enough for it? To me public healthcare is no more socialist than government funded police forces, the military, fire departments, public roads, etc... If you get arrested you are guaranteed a free lawyer if you can't afford it. How is healthcare any different? If you have to call the police should you later be billed for their time? Should every road be a toll road? Some services need to be provided by the government and I believe healthcare is one of them; at least for those who can't afford it.

You are comparing health care to infrastructure. In my opinion, 2 different subjects altogether. Infrastructure and entitlement programs are not the same. All existing entitlement programs are way out of proportion to the original intentions and have reached well beyond their original intentions. In fact, they will start to be underfunded before to long breaking the promise of the original intentions of those programs.

Just simply based on the history alone of huge entitlement programs in the USA, health care needs to stay out of the governments hands.
11-04-2009 03:50 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
jsenicka
Elite Veteran
Location: Hampton VA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum		To take it a step further.
There is no "government funding". It is all taxes, which people are legally compelled to pay that generates the funding.
Police, fire, etc are funded via property taxes. As it is, taxes such as this are hugely "progressive". The more your house cost, the more you pay in property tax. So if you have a 500k house, you pay twice as much as a 250k house, but you get the same police protection and fire protection. Schools are the same. Schools are funded via property taxes. So the same 500k house pays for schools even if they do not have kids, while a person with 4 kids and 75k house pays only a fraction of the taxes but gets the school benefits.


Health care is heading in the same direction.

Jim Senicka
3x T700N/OS91 - 3x Vibe 50/OS55HZ - Trex 450 Pro
11-04-2009 03:53 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
So if a person has a right to a product without the requirement to pay for it just because it is important, why is health care any different than housing, food, electricity, etc? Where is the line?

Health care is really no different to a typical family from housing, food, electricity, etc. Its a necessity for any family for obvious reasons.

The key here is the difference between your comparisons of infrastructure and entitlement programs in the Federal level. 2 different subjects entirely.

Anyone can still get medical care in any emergency room in the USA and not have to pay for it as long as they can prove they can't in some way. We are already paying for them through higher premiums.

We just don't want the government involved in managing it for reasons already stated.
11-04-2009 04:07 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
Foz
Senior Heliman
Location: USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
So if a person has a right to a product without the requirement to pay for it just because it is important, why is health care any different than housing, food, electricity, etc? Where is the line?

It's not. That's why I also support homeless shelters.

Quote 
Anyone can still get medical care in any emergency room in the USA and not have to pay for it as long as they can prove they can't in some way. We are already paying for them through higher premiums.

So you think that this is the best way to manage people who can't afford doctors? Emergency rooms are supposed to be for emergencies.

Quote 
There is no "government funding". It is all taxes, which people are legally compelled to pay that generates the funding.

Yes, I understand where the government's money comes from, by "government funded" I mean programs funded by tax money.

If you want to pay less property taxes, you can buy a smaller house.

Quote 
Health care is heading in the same direction.

It's not, but if it were, I'd be OK with that.


Foz
11-04-2009 05:28 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
Quote
Anyone can still get medical care in any emergency room in the USA and not have to pay for it as long as they can prove they can't in some way. We are already paying for them through higher premiums.


Foz
So you think that this is the best way to manage people who can't afford doctors? Emergency rooms are supposed to be for emergencies.

If you have better ideas, besides getting the government involved in it, then write your Congressman.

Quote 
Quote 
Health care is heading in the same direction.

It's not, but if it were, I'd be OK with that.

But, look at the history of USA entitlement programs. ALL of them are going broke. They have grown way beyond what their intentions were in the beginning. Why start another one that controls 20% of the US economy and make it worse and worse and more expensive each year? Same as the history of all US entitlement programs.

Besides, the far left says that health care is a right. If they control it, they can take it away from you if you don't follow the rules they lay out. Thats the way that thing is laid out. If they can take it away from you, ITS NOT A RIGHT. But, rather, its all about CONTROL. Thats what we don't want from the federal government.
11-04-2009 05:35 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
Foz
Senior Heliman
Location: USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
Why start another one that controls 20% of the US economy and make it worse and worse and more expensive each year?

That's what is happening now. I don't want to get back into the whole debate but the current system could not be more wasteful if you tried. ~20% of the money goes to admin alone. I don't understand why you don't mind being ripped off as long as it is done by a private company.
11-04-2009 06:25 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
fla heli boy
Veteran
Location: cape coral, florida

My Posts This: Topic  Forum		Hmmmm.....because the government will rip us off worse!!!! The principal is great, all for it. But in practice, we all know how inefficient the government is. That is the SOLE basis for Obama claiming this will SAVE money. No it won't, it can't. And once they get their grubby little paws into one of the biggest pieces of the pie, they're never gonna let it go. NEVER...look how we wouldn't even consider the SS buyout for younger people. Never happen because then they lose that control and power of you.
VOTE EVERY STINKIN' ONE OF THOSE DIRTY CROOKED BUMS OUT!!!!!!

"go with God son......and a bag full of guns"
11-04-2009 06:32 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
That's what is happening now. I don't want to get back into the whole debate but the current system could not be more wasteful if you tried. ~20% of the money goes to admin alone. I don't understand why you don't mind being ripped off as long as it is done by a private company.

The answer to that is simple.

A private company will do far less of a job of ripping me off than the government. A private company has to compete in the private sector. The government does not. A private company has to make a profit in order to grow and survive. The government does not have to make a profit. All it has to do is raise taxes.

Take health care for example. In order to implement that program, the Federal government will have to create almost 40 new agencies within itself to administer that plan. That alone will cost billions. Those are bureaucracies that are inefficient that we will ALL have to answer to.

A private company that rips off people does not last. The government is forever.

Please don't misunderstand. We do need government for infrastructure and national defense. I am not THAT against government.
11-04-2009 06:35 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
fla heli boy
Veteran
Location: cape coral, florida

My Posts This: Topic  Forum		Dennis

So simple and you know it. Two things

1. Tort Reform
2. Interstate competition between insurers

The majority of your problems are solved.

"go with God son......and a bag full of guns"
11-04-2009 06:39 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
Dennis

So simple and you know it. Two things

1. Tort Reform
2. Interstate competition between insurers

The majority of your problems are solved.

Thats true. In addition, we can add:

3. Fraud control.

Those three things will make a significant difference in controlling health care costs. Neither one of those three are in the present plan of almost 2000 pages that no one has pointed out to me. Its AMAZING !!!
11-04-2009 06:52 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
Foz
Senior Heliman
Location: USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum		I am going to have to respectfully disagree that those suggestions would solve any of the problems. I think the best fix is to do away with the health insurance industry all together and go with single payer. That's my 2 cents and I'm done.

Foz
11-04-2009 07:46 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
I am going to have to respectfully disagree that those suggestions would solve any of the problems. I think the best fix is to do away with the health insurance industry all together and go with single payer. That's my 2 cents and I'm done.

Yeah well, that would eliminate thousands of jobs in the health care insurance industry and put them right into the government sector administering single payer government health care. The worst possible move we could make at a time like we have right now. If anyone thinks the 1 trillion dollar cost that is being quoted now for gov single payer health care is all that there is, then I have a bridge to sell you cheap.

Respectfully, thats a very bad decision.
11-04-2009 07:52 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
1stPlace
Senior Heliman
Location: Ohio USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
I think the best fix is to do away with the health insurance industry all together and go with single payer.

You clearly haven't studied problems in the health care industry at all. Medicare rejects 107% more claims than private health care insurers. According to AG Holder, there was $60 Billion in Medicare fraud last year alone!

Government programs cover about 28% of the U.S population (roughly 83 million people), at the same time, government spending is about 52% of the total money spent on health care in the U.S..

The government does not, cannot, and will not do a better job than the free market.

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.
11-04-2009 08:01 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
jsenicka
Elite Veteran
Location: Hampton VA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum		I think the one thing that is missed here is the concept of buying a constituency. The very first thing any senator or congressman thinks on getting elected is "how can I stay?"

The vast majority of the complexity in our tax code is little tweaks (and sometimes not so little tweaks) to the tax code to benefit someone or some group in return for votes or campaign dollars. We do not have a flat tax because every politician uses the tax code for either "social engineering" or flat out vote buying. Some is simple. Want to promote home buying? Tax break. Want to promote marriage? Tax break. But that only goes so far. The real power is in the baseline taxes owed to begin with. Based on rolling out the tax cuts on highest income folks in 2010 and continued AMT disparity, the highest brackets will pay the VAST majority of the tax bill for the US by 2011. So the politicians can say "I am helping the poor" or "working for the middle class" by making them shoulder less and less of a share of the cost of things that are common used, such as defense, etc. So by a seriously progressive tax system you can stick the burden of paying for most stuff on a relatively small group of people, and effective give those services to a vastly larger group of people in return for votes.

But that is not enough. Health care takes this to a whole new level. This takes the ability to spend some taxpayers money to buy multiple votes to a new universe. Why should a family making 200 grand pay more for health care than a family making 100 grand? Because you can buy two sets of votes by making it cheaper for the lower income.

The ability to force people to pay for health insurance, or force people to contribute to a government system is all based on taking that revenue or coverage and extending it to a huge number of people who do not pay in return for votes to stay in Washington.

You really need to look at every bit of this entitlement stuff as spending your money to buy other people's votes.

So a "Single Payer" should be billed as "legally compel a small group of people to pay so that I may buy the votes of many with health care"

Jim Senicka
3x T700N/OS91 - 3x Vibe 50/OS55HZ - Trex 450 Pro
11-04-2009 08:19 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
Dennis
Senior Heliman
Location: Oregon

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
So a "Single Payer" should be billed as "legally compel a small group of people to pay so that I may the votes of many with health care"

The problem I see with that is that you can easily have many more tax eaters than you have tax payers. The tax payers will get fed up with that rather quickly and move businesses offshore or leave the USA entirely. They are already shifting around the states finding states that have less income taxes. New York already has the highest income tax of any state. The higher income brackets are leaving that state little by little. There is a hint there.

You will blow the incentive to move forward and do better for yourself and your family and move into the higher income brackets. That would be the single worst thing you can do to our society. It just makes no common sense what so ever in my mind.
11-04-2009 08:47 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE  
 
 
OzarkCopterBum
Senior Heliman
Location: Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
You clearly haven't studied problems in the health care industry at all. Medicare rejects 107% more claims than private health care insurers.

Quote 
Government programs cover about 28% of the U.S population (roughly 83 million people),

So the health insurers that you compared Medicare rejection rates with to get your 107%, do they insure the same 28% of the population? Something a little skewed about your numbers there.

Also denial of claims doesn't necessarily mean a person didn't get treatment from private or medicare, there are lots of reasons why claims get denied.

Here is some real data from the AMA to base off of. They grade Medicare a bit higher than your 107%.

2008 National Health Insurer Report Card

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
11-04-2009 08:50 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
1stPlace
Senior Heliman
Location: Ohio USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
So the health insurers that you compared Medicare rejection rates with to get your 107%, do they insure the same 28% of the population?

They do insure some of that same 28%. I couldn't find the percentage of that 28% who also have private insurance.

Quote 
Something a little skewed about your numbers there.

Nope

Quote 
Also denial of claims doesn't necessarily mean a person didn't get treatment from private or medicare, there are lots of reasons why claims get denied.

The statistics take all of that into consideration. So, what's your point?

Quote 
Here is some real data from the AMA to base off of. They grade Medicare a bit higher than your 107%.

That is where I got my data, and the 107% which I provided is accurate.

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.
11-04-2009 09:08 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
OzarkCopterBum
Senior Heliman
Location: Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
That is where I got my data, and the 107% which I provided is accurate.

Not according to the AMA. You are only looking at the very top portion that supports your claim, which also happens to be the only partof that report that deniers are emailing around. You and they are not factoring in that over 100k of Medicare claims were denied due to errors in reporting, filled out wrong, double billed and things like that. Look at metrics 13 and 14 for the reason WHY the claims were denied and compare that with privates.

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
11-04-2009 09:26 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
1stPlace
Senior Heliman
Location: Ohio USA

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
Not according to the AMA.

That number came directly from the AMA report! You are twisting the truth to suit your desires.

Quote 
You are only looking at the very top portion that supports your claim, which also happens to be the only partof that report that deniers are emailing around.

"The deniers"

Quote 
You and they are not factoring in that over 100k of Medicare claims were denied due to errors in reporting, filled out wrong, double billed and things like that.

Those denials are included in the 107%. You are trying to say they don't count? That's ridiculous!

Diejenigen, die nicht lernen aus den Fehlern der Vergangenheit bestimmt sind, zu wiederholen.
11-04-2009 09:53 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
OzarkCopterBum
Senior Heliman
Location: Arkansas Ozarks

My Posts This: Topic  Forum
Quote 
That number came directly from the AMA report! You are twisting the truth to suit your desires.

Quote 
Those denials are included in the 107%. You are trying to say they don't count? That's ridiculous!

Nope, I'm saying that unless you factor in WHY they were denied and compare it to the privates then you are comparing apples to oranges. You can post all the rolleyes you want but unless you factor in the why part along with the amounts compared to privates then you are missing it.

Repo man's got all day and all night! Lets go get a drink!
11-04-2009 10:15 PM
PROFILE   PM   EMAIL   POSTS   BUDDY   IGNORE   GALLERY
 
 
3 pages [ <<    <     1     ( 2 )     3     NEXT    >> ]579 viewsPOST REPLY
HeliProz . Ron’s HeliProz South . MTA Hobbies

.
.
Off Topics News & Politics > The liberal mind?
 Print TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Tuesday, November 24 - 6:32 am - Copyright © 2000 - 2009 runryder.com | email | link to rr | START HERE | NF