Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       03-16-2010, 4:12 PM Reply   
This is so creepy, shameful, slimy and disgusting, it would be funny if I was sure they weren't going to get away with it. I know this "trick" has been used before and that's just as wrong because it completely violates the spirit of how things our supposed to work in our government. The funniest part is that everyone is up in arms about the recent Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend without limits on elections, but look at the result of of the previous policy...a Congress full of slimy pieces of crap!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35890744...h_care_reform/

Quote:
Democrats defended plans to push massive health care legislation through the House without a direct vote and Republicans assailed the strategy Tuesday, as both parties fenced ferociously over the health overhaul end game.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed.
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       03-16-2010, 7:17 PM Reply   
This is what happens with one party rule. Make sure you remember in November.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-16-2010, 7:18 PM Reply   
I think that you have championed terms limits in the past. That gets at the root of this issue. As always they are trying to buy votes in an election year...

I am all form healthcare reform of some kind, just not this kind. How any HC reform can be passed without tort reform is beyond me.
Old    WakePowell Chris (epic1)      Join Date: Oct 2006       03-16-2010, 9:35 PM Reply   
i will remember, because I remebmer the bush era one party system. Bills passed with reconsilation. You remember too, right. SO I WILL BE VOTING DEM.....
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       03-17-2010, 7:11 AM Reply   
Colorado Wake
Obviously you don't remember the Bush administration. What I said is one party rule doesn't work.
Hold your noise, plug your ears and close your eyes and keep voting the thieves back in. This is just the start of things to come. Gridlock is the only answer when the government says they are helping the only one they help is them self.

Remember in November.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-17-2010, 7:41 AM Reply   
Yes, in November remember to vote for the party that's obstructing all progress to get anything done. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to your party.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-17-2010, 7:45 AM Reply   
All we're trying to do is clog the drain.
Old    Benjamin (bendow)      Join Date: Sep 2005       03-17-2010, 7:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Yes, in November remember to vote for the party that's obstructing all progress to get anything done. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to your party.

Yeah...exactly! Remember to vote for the party who is trying to save the US from socialism and a healthcare bill that will bankrupt our country. John read this article posted below, scroll down and read the comments by the users. Notice the staggering amount of comments by people opposed to this bill. Do you really think the Republicans are trying to obstruct things being done? Common sense would tell you they're trying to stop a bill that the American people CLEARLY do not want

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100316/ts_csm/288060
Old    Jim Young (jyoungusa)      Join Date: Sep 2009       03-17-2010, 7:52 AM Reply   
Who are the obstructionist, the Dems control the whole shooting match - Nancy hasn't called a vote yet becuase she cant win....Let us not forget that the majority of Americans do not want THIS healthcare bill passed. Not saying that don't want A healthcare bill just not THIS one.

The President and Congress needs to go back to the drawing board and put together a bill which takes smaller bites, reduces costs and doesn't put us further in debt to the Chinese. Spending is out of control and the knuckleheads in the beltway haven't figured out that someone eventually has to pay.

and while you are remembering in November - start saving your money, because the middle class is going to pay for this too - directly through higher taxes and indirectly through higher costs for goods and services.
Old     (admin)      Join Date: Jan 1997       03-17-2010, 9:03 AM Reply   
What a total joke to say that Republicans are being obstructionists. Dems had more than a year to pass whatever they wanted because they had their majority, but they couldn't even sell their own party on the snake oil they were pedeling. It's so funny that people buy that ridiculous line. Whatever makes you feel good I guess.

That being said, I'll take obstruction from either party right now. I definitely think that doing nothing is going to leave us better off than the "something" the current idiots in charge are coming up with. Term limits, baby. Term limits!
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       03-17-2010, 12:44 PM Reply   
2010: House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on the idea of passing health care with a self-executing rule: The House Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, also defended the maneuver on Tuesday. “It is consistent with the rules,” Mr. Hoyer said. “It is consistent with former practice.”

2003: House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer complaining about the Republicans' use of self-executing rules: "When the Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing for the adoption of the $82 billion plan over 10 years and an almost trillion-dollar plan over 20 years, accelerating the increased child tax credit for low-income people families, we didn't even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in?

...We should neither excuse those past practices nor count their occurrences. No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception."

Anyone who uses or has used this procedure should be kicked to the curb!!
Old    Brian White (eustace)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-17-2010, 1:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jyoungusa View Post
Who are the obstructionist, the Dems control the whole shooting match - Nancy hasn't called a vote yet becuase she cant win....Let us not forget that the majority of Americans do not want THIS healthcare bill passed. Not saying that don't want A healthcare bill just not THIS one.
.

Exactly!!!!

The Blame Game and Name Calling is about all they can ever muster up.....
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-17-2010, 2:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakeworld View Post
No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception."
If only they actually debated legislation. Why don't the American people vote to not have a Congress. Just keep the current laws in place indefinitely. It doesn't matter who's in the majority because the minority will do everything possible to obstruct progress.

Must we have these same lame arguments indefinitely? Am I supposed to believe that after Nov and the GOP hypothetically takes a majority, then they will implement healthcare legislation that matters?
Old    Michael Hunter (mhunter)      Join Date: Mar 2008       03-18-2010, 6:59 AM Reply   
It would be nice to know what is in the HC bill. Or maybe have the congress READ it before they vote on it . One thing I know is there is NO tort reform in it . With out controlling the sleazeball ambulance chasers the bill is useless.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 8:40 AM Reply   
What amazes me is people do not understand that the more you use something the more it costs. I think where things went off rail is people actually started to get health insurance and everyone started to go to the doctor many times a year. Well, you have to pay to play. Even if they did come up with a government plan it would be in the red. I don't want that. You have to control cost by tort reform and you also unfortunately have to limit usage. There is zero way around it. The insurance companies, as evil as you think they may be, are dialed in on what it takes to keep the business running. They have to keep within regulations for record keeping and make sure they can defend themselves from lawsuit. They do it with 5% to 7% profit margin. The numbers we are talking about are not in the 5% to 7% range. Regardless of who is running it, 5% to 7% is not a big deal. What the big issue is, is the run away usage and billing. We went to the urgent care when we were visiting Indiana a few years ago. It did not cost much at all for a visit (wife had strep throat). Do that in California, you may as well take out a loan. For those that are paying high premiums, I could be wrong but my guess is it is because you are using the system or have a plan that has low deductibles that means you are more likely to use the plan. They need to make a plan like dental. One where you get two visits a year. They need to make it so someone coming into an emergency room can be turned away if it is not an emergency as well. We can not continue to have the safe guards of the legal system if you want cheap insurance (service contract). Only way you are going to be able to have the usage that people enjoy with insurance is to start having doctors work for a fixed price regardless of the visits. When that happens, then you are going to have doctors quit.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 8:50 AM Reply   
And the higher medical costs are, the bigger a number 5%-7% is. Our healthcare system is inefficient and it benefits the insurance company to be inefficient. Doctors can't do hardly anything because only specialists get reembursed for treatment. Our medical system is hyperinflated because you get shuffled from one specialist to another repeating the same tests over and over. Specialists take no responsibility for figuring out what's wrong a patient and general practitioners hand you off to one specialist after another. The stress that this causes on the patient ultimately sends them to psychiatrists and those pill pushing quacks addict them on antianxiety, pain killers, and bipolar type medications. We are a pill popping society nuitured along by the pharmaceutical industry.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 9:04 AM Reply   
So that number gets to be a big number. It is still only 5% to 7%. At the end of the day the argument here is not 5% to 7%. The point is, insurance companies have this down to a science on what it costs to keep a program in the black and this is what it costs.

I agree that people do get moved from one specialist to the next. Many times it is at the patient request because the patient wants results. At the end of the day it only enforces that you have to pay to play. Moving this to the government in no way changes that fact. Only thing it would do is mask the cost of an out of control system. It only strengthens the argument you have to limit usage to control costs. Unfortunately, that means many people will not be able to get healthy. You already have 10% of the people paying 90% of the taxes. What people are after now, is for the rest of the tax payers to pay for the high usage people because the 10% of the people are not going to be able to pay for all the rest. That means that the middle income people are going to have to pay through the nose as well in taxes.

At the end of the day only two things can happen. You limit usage and people will not feel they get the health care they deserve OR you continue to let the usage be high and you will pay through the nose. You can not get something for nothing.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 9:39 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
At the end of the day the argument here is not 5% to 7%. The point is, insurance companies have this down to a science on what it costs to keep a program in the black and this is what it costs.
Precisely. The science is to raise rates every year at a multiple of the avg inflation rate.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 9:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
At the end of the day only two things can happen. You limit usage and people will not feel they get the health care they deserve OR you continue to let the usage be high and you will pay through the nose. You can not get something for nothing.
There are more than two things that can happen. It's been proven in many other countries that you can improve life expectancy and cuts costs in half.
Name:  6a00e0098226918833012876674340970c-800wi.jpg
Views: 269
Size:  62.0 KB

Last edited by wakeworld; 03-23-2010 at 12:39 AM.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 10:22 AM Reply   
Again, that is a fail. The whole I am going to mask the issue with a cost per person in US dollars chart. Now take that chart and cross refrence it against how much money Americans make. Cross reference that on how much doctors make. Then on how much doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance. Then on required record keeping. Availability of services.

I agree. Live expectancy may be just as long if not longer in those countries and it may have zero to do with healthcare. I think it is false to try and tie life expectancy to medical cost. On one web site the cost for the last year of life is around 30% of the medicare budget and within that 10 percent of Medicare beneficiaries account for 70 percent of program spending. Basically if life expectancy is not going up, it appears to me that we use high technology to try and prolong the last year of peoples lives at a very high cost. At the end of that, 1 year does not affect life expectancy statistics that much, but increasing costs 40% does increase cost of insurance.

Also, your chart does not go into social factors such as how long is someone going to be out of work due to an injury compared to the USA. How many sports/ work injuries do they have compared to us. What is their wait times for doctors. None of that affects length of life, but does affect earning potential and quality of life. But does affect cost of insurance. Meaning ours is going to be higher.

I would say that other cultures will have a longer life expectancy just by nature they can't afford to eat at McDonalds everyday and may actually have more family values and sit down dinners.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 10:31 AM Reply   
wonder why germany is not on that chart?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 10:37 AM Reply   
delta, I hate to tell you but you are just rambling in that last post. How much rationalizing does it take to dismiss reality? Are you suggesting that those other countries don't provide care for the elderly with your last year of life rationale? Are you suggesting that life expectancy has zero to do with healthcare? Are you suggesting that only in the US do people get sports injuries?

You are correct that there are other factors in play than just bookkeeping at insurance companies. The medical industry is heading for an awaking. Because it won't be long before the majority will not be able to pay for the poor level of healthcare they get in return for their hard to come by dollars.

The point is that without healthcare reform we are making no progress in tackling those other factors. It's been nearly 20 years since Clinton first attempted reform and failed. The need for reform has increased dramically in terms of cost since then. Both to the govt and to the individual. It makes no sense to turn a blind eye again and attempt to give it another 20 years.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 10:44 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
wonder why germany is not on that chart?
Don't know but here's a chart with Germany from 1998.
Old    Brian White (eustace)      Join Date: Nov 2002       03-18-2010, 11:43 AM Reply   
I donít think anyone here is saying that not reform isn't needed. But passing something that has no tort reform, loaded with kick backs for certain States and special exemptions for unions just doesnít cut if for most of us. Oh! and not to mention 14 years of tax collection for 10 years of benefits and that congress has exempted themselves from this program.

How about they enact this program for ALL federal, state, municipal, and public school employees, including teachers? Letís give it 5-7 years and see if they can manage it deficit neutral.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 11:47 AM Reply   
I am suggesting that the healthcare does not seem to increase life expectancy as much as people would like to think. I bet social lifestyle has more to do with it and access to clean water and having better diets and less workload than overall healthcare.

Rationalization is everything. Stats are worthless without context. For instance, does your Costs of healthcare also include that German's have private insurance as well for the well to do? Did you know that you can't sue doctors in Germany? Then you have to look at other factors but at the end of the day, doctors don't bill as much and they don't have multimillion dollar machines setting in every town they have to pay for. It is apples and oranges in many cases.

You are correct, we need to change the way we look at healthcare but moving who pays for it fixes nothing.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-18-2010, 12:02 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by eustace View Post
I donít think anyone here is saying that not reform isn't needed. But passing something that has no tort reform, loaded with kick backs for certain States and special exemptions for unions just doesnít cut if for most of us.
That's the problem. What doesn't cut it for most of us leaves a lot of people without healthcare. The reason for the reform we are getting now is to put people into the healthcare system that have no access. The reality is that nobody knows exactly why our healthcare is so expensive and ineffective. We have to be forced in to fixing the problem. If we don't enact reform now, then when will we do it? And how will it get done? Will the GOP be pushing reform to win elections in Nov?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 12:09 PM Reply   
Doing some research for Germany it appears that everyone is required to buy insurance and to buy end life insurance. The insurance at the time of the article, and it appears fairly recent, you are required to pay 15.5% of your gross income for the insurance with a cap of $62,781 dollars. The end life insurance is another 2.2%. You are required to pay 8.2% and the employer the rest. If you are self employed then it appears you pay it all. Also, your wife/ husband is required to pay as well based on their income separately from your income. Of course wages are not as high in Gernmany so I am sure a similar American system would have a higher cap. So in California where both wage earners could easily make that kind money, you are looking at a total liability of $19462.11 year in health insurance alone. That is using the German Cap. Also, the average doctor in Germany makes about 2/3 less than an American Doctor according to the doctor. Then you also have to take into account that you as a tax payer will have paid for that doctor's schooling as well through taxes. Then if you make over the cap, you can obtain private insurance to make up for the gaps in coverage.

Also, those figures don't include the end of life insurance requirement costs.

Last edited by deltahoosier; 03-18-2010 at 12:19 PM.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-18-2010, 12:18 PM Reply   
I don't know John. I know as of right now almost anyone can go to a county hospital and receive healthcare. My wife had two surgeries when she was younger at the county hospital. Most just don't want to deal with that since all the "less desirable" people are down there.

Typically in free market situations, when you have more people with more money to spend on something, then the price always goes up until the demand levels off. Right now the way insurance works is people go to the doctors pretty much at will when we have insurance so the doctors I bet keep raising their rates until the demand is lowered. Of course the insurance companies have to raise their rates to keep up with usage of their members and the cost of services to stay in the black. I think it is just good ol fashion market forces. If you truely want it to come down, you have to limit usage and then limit costs. WIth that, you are going to have to have shortages at a certain point in you high population areas. In Germany, the state says what doctors are allowed to charge.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-18-2010, 2:34 PM Reply   
Healthcare needs its fixes for sure. Too many people are uninsured both for their own doing and by circumstances. Insurance coverage and cost is an issue. Medical costs are a separate issue. Tort costs are another issue. All of these separate with their own causes and potential fixes. Calling it all a "healthcare" probelm as if it were one is WAY too broad a generalization.

That said, I do know this: creating another MAJOR government program/department, most of which generally live forever and are impossible to kill even long past their usefulness, with it's own self-interested annual budget increases, unionized labor, pension costs IS NOT going to save money by any means. Name one government program that is run efficiently and cost effectively. Why would this be true now? It ain't gonna happen. And you know who's going to pay for this new fantastic expensive program? Taxpayers who are "rich" enough to afford wake boats.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-18-2010, 3:18 PM Reply   
Yeah, that's what we want, to model our system after a failing economy in Germany. I know a number of individuals who just entered the workforce over there, it's not good.


Quote:
That's the problem. What doesn't cut it for most of us leaves a lot of people without healthcare. The reason for the reform we are getting now is to put people into the healthcare system that have no access. The reality is that nobody knows exactly why our healthcare is so expensive and ineffective. We have to be forced in to fixing the problem. If we don't enact reform now, then when will we do it? And how will it get done? Will the GOP be pushing reform to win elections in Nov?
So who cares about getting it right. Let's just enact a plan that will bankrupt the country shortly after the plan is in place.

"On March 5th, the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that the federal debt will grow far faster than the president is predicting, reaching a staggering 90% of GDP by 2020. That's comparable to the load now crippling Greece."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Health...97958.html?x=0

Last edited by bflat53212; 03-18-2010 at 3:22 PM. Reason: adding link to reference
Old    Dhtige Hill (dh03r6)      Join Date: Mar 2007       03-18-2010, 4:17 PM Reply   
We should let the government run more of our lives, i'm tired of thinking for myself anyway. I'm SURE they will get it right.
Old    Jim Young (jyoungusa)      Join Date: Sep 2009       03-18-2010, 7:24 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by dh03r6 View Post
We should let the government run more of our lives, i'm tired of thinking for myself anyway. I'm SURE they will get it right.
What know one understands unless you have lived in Germany is that taxes in Germany are 50% (you do only work 36 hrs and get paid for 40 though)
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       03-18-2010, 7:49 PM Reply   
I bet we are likely to find out because with the last rhetoric about shaving 1 trillion from the deficit, I'm sure it'll pass. The accounting system in our government is what needs overhauling because the plan cost around 942 billion to maintain. Multiply that times 10 and that will cut 1 trillion from the deficit. Sounds like "fuzzy" math to me. I wonder where the money will come from?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-19-2010, 7:17 AM Reply   
Also, in Germany you don't tend to make as much, unemployment is higher and most importantly the grades you get through school determine your career. Basically at age 14 if you are not outstanding in school you will be put into a vocational program and that is it. You are going to be a painter or what ever for the rest of your life. My buddies son is 15 years old and had to find a sponsor to train him. He make $500 a month, has to go to work and school and by the time he is 17 he is done. He then, based on his grades in that program, will move on and hopefully be able to secure a job. If not, he stays on unemployment but hey he will have healthcare.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       03-19-2010, 7:27 AM Reply   
"On March 5th, the Congressional Budget Office released a report stating that the federal debt will grow far faster than the president is predicting, reaching a staggering 90% of GDP by 2020. That's comparable to the load now crippling Greece."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Health...97958.html?x=0


This is what worries me the most. They really have no frickin idea about what this is actually going to do to our economy. After it passes, we all might be glad, because none of us are going to have jobs.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-19-2010, 7:33 AM Reply   
Who said anything about modeling our economy after Germany? Give you guys an opportunity for a tangent and you run with it.
Old    Cliff (ord27)      Join Date: Oct 2005       03-19-2010, 7:44 AM Reply   
the scary thing is that if this health care bill passes, Obama's next mission will be immigration. He will grant amnesty to the millions of illegals (giving them health care). They will then be able to legally vote, resulting in another 4 years of this crap......
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-19-2010, 8:25 AM Reply   
What can we say John. We all love to talk and type.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-19-2010, 8:28 AM Reply   
We can talk about the french system. Even after all the extra taxes and so called socialized medicine, you still are responsible for 25% of each bill. What is 25% of a $300,000 bill for an emergency visit with a few day hospital stay?

I starts to become apparent when you look at all the other systems in the world, the individual actually pays a lot for the insurance regardless. The only thing that differs is the cost of service and that is where the US kind of screws itself in that regard.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       03-19-2010, 8:57 AM Reply   
Bottom line facts that some people just don't understand...
  • Providing the best level of care and providing care to everyone is not possible.
  • Rationing of care is a necessity whether it's socialized or run through insurance companies.
  • Covering patients for pre-existing conditions without forcing everyone to buy insurance (unconstitutional in my mind) is not possible.
  • Removing the profit motive for innovation in medicine will reduce the quality of care not just for the U.S., but for the entire world (since most innovations come from our "evil" profit-driven system).

Last edited by wakeworld; 03-19-2010 at 9:05 AM.
Old    Mark (mofreestyle)      Join Date: Jan 2006       03-19-2010, 8:59 AM Reply   
All I have to say is that those charts are ridiculous. You can not draw causal relationships according to that data which means they are very misleading. Those are correlations and really mean nothing in this instance. Let's look at Japan. Japan has a high life expectancy with a below average cost of health care spending person but look at their society. If you looked at the obesity rate in Japan which is 3.2% verses our obesity rate of 30.6% we can see another correlation. Maybe we could afford our health care if we lived a little differently.

link to obesity rates: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...health-obesity
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-19-2010, 10:25 AM Reply   
Mark, the charts aren't ridiculous unless they are wrong. But you are right that it is too simplistic and wrong to assume that the charts reflect solely a problem with insurance companies.

Obesity is a big problem and IMO is only part of the picture with what's wrong with our health. The production of food and quality is a factor. It's not just obese people who are getting sick. Also you'll find that doctors are pretty useless unless the solution is a knife or an FDA approved chemical compound that the pharmaceutical sales team coaches a doctor to prescribe.
Old    Flight007 (poser007)      Join Date: Nov 2004       03-19-2010, 8:19 PM Reply   
Here is what I don't get, does everyone think they are going to get free health care? I'm pretty sure I am going to have to fork out around $500 additional bones a month to cover myself since I am self employed. $6000 a year. Now I can elect to not have it but I will be taxed woops I mean fined. Here is what this legislation will do.

1. Massive Job Loss
2. ruin the economy
3. cause chaos
4. give the Feds a huge foot hold on moving toward a sweeping government grab for more power.
5. Mass exodus by Physicians leaving the health care industry for early retirement cause a huge decrease in Physicians but adding an additional 30 million patients. This alone will put a huge strain on the system causing massive waiting periods.

The reason they crafted this to start 4 years down the road is because they don't want to be able to ride the (We passed health care legislation) for the next election. They can say look, all the fear mongers said this and that would happen but the sky didn't fall. That's because we won't see the results from this for quite some time, although we will be paying for it retroactively.

The bottom line for me is how they have went about hiding this from the people. This is in stark contrast to the Obama who ran on change and a transparent Presidency. I am against this bill because I don't know whats in it, plain and simple, anyone who wants this bill to pass without having all the facts is foolish. When you are dealing with 1/6th of our entire economy, you don't rush a head without careful planning and stradegy. The way this whole thing has been handled should anger every citizen across our country, regardless of your party affiliation.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-19-2010, 10:18 PM Reply   
Quote:
The way this whole thing has been handled should anger every citizen across our country, regardless of your party affiliation.
What angers me is that this is the only way it can get done.
Old    Jim Zarin (jimmy_z)      Join Date: Jun 2009       03-19-2010, 11:10 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
What angers me is that this is the only way it can get done.
John, thats what they want you to think.

I agree with you that there can be a solution. Unfortunately that solution requires that NO POLITICIAN CAN ACCEPT ANY FORM OF MONETARY COMPENSATION from anyone except the government agency that employs them.

Money and lobbyists have killed our political system.

It will continue to be inept until we get the money out of politics.

Term limits dont mean crap.

These scumbags dont care. They are hired by you and me, it doesnt matter what political party you belong to, and they laugh all the way to the bank.

They get high paying jobs from the corporations who paid them to vote in their favor, when they are voted out.

Wake up people. Term limits dont do squat. They make politicians more aggressive in their actions. What you are seeing with this healthcare bill is the blueprint for my argument. They KNOW they will be voted out in November and still dont care that 3 out of 4 Americans disapprove of this bill.

Last edited by jimmy_z; 03-19-2010 at 11:18 PM.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-20-2010, 9:21 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmy_z View Post
John, thats what they want you to think.
No, that's reality. And I agree that term limits will do no good. That just means that special interests will have more power because the jobs will be bought with campaign dollars even more so than it is now. Changing the guard will only be effective if the American public does it with their vote, not with law.

It makes no sense to say that they will pass the bill because they know they will be voted out in Nov. This is just the ambiguity of political strategy.

A) If the bill doesn't pass then the Democrats will be shown as ineffectual. Passing the bill is the best chance they have to stay in office.

B) It passes the American public will be unhappy and vote them out.

I believe A is more closer to the truth. B is the message espoused by those who wouldn't vote Democrat anyway.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 9:27 AM Reply   
Actually option B) was the one displayed in the race for Ted Kennedy's old seat. Ever think a Republican would own that seat?
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       03-20-2010, 12:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Actually option B) was the one displayed in the race for Ted Kennedy's old seat. Ever think a Republican would own that seat?
Based on what you guys are saying.... If the healthcare bill passes and the GOP gains a majority in Nov I fully expect them to write new laws and fix the shortcoming and mistakes of this bill. But the reality is that I expect the GOP to do nothing.

I think you are assuming too much WRT Brown's win. The Mass mindset might be best explained by a quote from Brown....

""We have insurance here in Massachusetts," he said in a campaign debate. "I'm not going to be subsidizing for the next three, five years, pick a number, subsidizing what other states have failed to do."
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 12:54 PM Reply   
And the Massachusetts health care is way in the red right now. It is actually being touted as a FAILURE.

Mass. healthcare reform is failing us

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...is_failing_us/

First, it has not achieved universal healthcare, although the reform has been a boon to the private insurance industry. The state has more than 200,000 without coverage, and the count can only go up with rising unemployment.

Second, the reform does not address the problem of insurance being connected to jobs. For individuals, this means their insurance is not continuous if they change or lose jobs. For employers, especially small businesses, health insurance is an expense they can ill afford.

Third, the program is not affordable for many individuals and families. For middle-income people not qualifying for state-subsidized health insurance, costs are too high for even skimpy coverage. For an individual earning $31,213, the cheapest plan can cost $9,872 in premiums and out-of-pocket payments. Low-income residents, previously eligible for free care, have insurance policies requiring unaffordable copayments for office visits and medications.

Fourth, the costs of the reform for the state have been formidable. Spending for the Commonwealth Care subsidized program has doubled, from $630 million in 2007 to an estimated $1.3 billion for 2009, which is not sustainable.

Fifth, reform does not assure access to care. High-deductible plans that have additional out-of-pocket expenses can result in many people not using their insurance when they are sick. In my practice of child and adolescent psychiatry, a parent told me last week that she had a decrease in her job hours, could not afford the $30 copayment for treatment sessions for her adolescent, and decided to meet much less frequently.
Old    Mike (ponyh8r)      Join Date: Dec 2004       03-20-2010, 1:03 PM Reply   
I think what bothers me most is that no matter what the outcome, Americans as a whole could care less. I don't think the average American cares one way or the other because they have no clue as to what is going on. Ask 10 people to describe Obamacare and you will get 10 completely different descriptions.

It might be unpopular to say, but Obama won the election because it became the popular thing to do. He was not the most experienced nor did he have the best resume. And no matter how bad things get jacked up, no matter how much American debt is accumulated, no matter how socialized our nation becomes......the fickle, forgetful, lazy American people will vote these clowns back into office. I have by and large given up on our political system. This president has bold faced lied to us about lobby reform and transparency. TRANSPARENCY, they are pushing a bill that no one, including them, has a clue what is in it.

I guess i am just more upset about the lack of will exhibited by most Americans to get involved, educate themselves and understand what is taking place in our political system. Dave said it best...it's sleezy, shameful and disgusting...but by and large Americans will not care.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 1:19 PM Reply   
I have been looking into more articles from the Massachusetts health care. Some say it is successful but are talking about the rising costs and the increasing underemployed putting a strain on the system. Others are calling it a failure.

The biggest theme I keep seeing and I have already talked about it, is the rising costs of service. They are now trying to get doctors to agree to stop asking for tests that the doctors want to give because they feel the doctors are ordering tests to make money but are not wanting the doctors to agree to a set cost for a years worth of treatment of a patient the that patients needs in a hope that the doctor will not order tests for the patient because the doctor is on a fixed cost. And that is from an article that was pro health care saying it was successful. I told you that is the only way for a health care system to keep costs under control. The payer of the insurance is not going to matter. Only way for them to stay in budget is to get doctors to cut services or they raise co payments so high that it limits people from going to the doctor meaning limiting usage (AKA France and it's 25% co-pay). The reason many people have this huge insurance costs is they have plans with low co-payments.

The other side of the coin they are not talking about is the higher unemployment. Now the whole country is being hit in general but I bet any amount of money that many businesses cut workers back to the minimum so they don't get fined for being over so many employees and not offering insurance. The Mass plan saying employers of so many employees have to offer insurance or get fined.

At the end of the day their is no magic bullet for this.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-20-2010, 1:19 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by deltahoosier View Post
Actually option B) was the one displayed in the race for Ted Kennedy's old seat. Ever think a Republican would own that seat?
NO, that had very little to do with healthcare, despite how you want to view the outcome. The Democratic challenger (name escapes me) ran a horrible campaign and was banking on the fact that since Ted held the seat for so long, she was a sure-in. It wasn't until close to the election that she realized she was in trouble, but by then, it was too late. Ted was very liberal, if MA wanted a change so bad, why didn't he get voted out a long time ago?
Old    Chad (dcwillette)      Join Date: Sep 2005       03-20-2010, 1:22 PM Reply   
Going back to the issue of obesity and healthcare... It's true that obesity is a huge factor in American's health and healthcare costs. It's also true that studies on Wellness programs have been shown time and time again to lower healthcare costs, and to an even greater degree losses of productivity due to health reasons.

However, that chart that compares obesity rates in various countries does so by using Body Mass Index (BMI). The BMI table was developed in the 1950's and hasn't been updated since. It does not take into account lean muscle mass or differences in body composition. According to the BMI table, virtually any athlete that's not a swimmer or distance runner is obese.

It's no surprise that Japan and Korea have the lowest BMI but after living there, I wouldn't call them more fit than Americans.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 1:26 PM Reply   
Jeremy your logic kills me. In any race, name power rules. Why do you think Arnold won the Governor position in Cali? It was a run off and he had the name power. Even in a liberal state like California (well liberal cities anyway). Yes, she did run a horrible election. Why do you suppose the people of Massachusetts elected a Republican as their Governor? Why do you think many of the democrats looking to vote for healthcare reform get real scared and even switched tactics on what healthcare provisions they tried to get into the bill after Brown was elected. It sent a huge message.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-20-2010, 1:52 PM Reply   
"In any race, name power rules."

I think you are wrong. I will give you examples, 2000 presidential race, Al Gore did not win the state of TN. His father is a legend in TN and Al Jr was liked. Arnold is liberal in most of his views; i.e. pro gun control, pro choice, believes in man-influenced climate change, pro-Stimulus, but since he has a gajillion dollars, he considers himself a conservative. Obama's name was and is still linked to the most unpopular name in the US, Osama, and he is the president of the US. Look at former MA governor, Romney, was pro choice then he flipped, supported same sex marriage and flipped again. Bush Sr. wasn't well liked, but his son, a bad businessman, managed to serve two terms as president...Sooooooooo how exactly does my logic kill you?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 2:06 PM Reply   
No one knew a thing about Arnold's real views until he was elected. Name power

Bush got the nomination because of his dad's name. The elder Bush was actually well liked. Two things killed him. First, the economy tanked bad for one year and he raised taxes that got his base bent out of shape and then the other is a guy named Ross Perot was convinced to stay in the race and took considerable votes from him so a man named Bill Clinton barely won the vote. Name power is still the name of the game for the younger Bush.

Do you really think Obama was linked to Osama? Really? How far do you have to stretch illogical thinking to make this work? Obama got in because the young people and many others thought it would be cool to finally elect a black man to president. Other than that, the election would have been too close to call with any other candidate.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 2:09 PM Reply   
Let me ask you this. If you think the government is going to make insurance cheaper, why is it that of all Americans 27.8% are actually insured through the Government but the government spending on insurance is from 45% to 56.1% of all health care spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_..._States#Public

Government programs directly cover 27.8% of the population (83 million),[1] including the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and some of the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Public spending accounts for between 45% and 56.1% of U.S. health care spending.[64]
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 2:31 PM Reply   
another interesting tidbit.






United States seems to do better with cancer treatments. Got to pay to play I guess.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-20-2010, 3:50 PM Reply   
"Do you really think Obama was linked to Osama?"

No, I never said that, I said his name. Another thing was, why did conservatives always refer to him using his full name, Barrack Hussein Obama? This was a failed tactic that the GOP would figure that since Obama shared a named with the ruthless leader of Iraq, the American public would associate the name with Islamic terrorists. I don't ever recall hearing John McCain's middle name, Palin's, or Biden's, but we would always hear B.H.O, why is that?

When I voted for Obama, I did not think it was "cool" to vote for a black man. I considered the alternative, and went with who I felt was the better candidate and I feel was still the better candidate.

Another thing

"Bush got the nomination because of his dad's name. The elder Bush was actually well liked. Two things killed him. First, the economy tanked bad for one year and he raised taxes that got his base bent out of shape and then the other is a guy named Ross Perot was convinced to stay in the race and took considerable votes from him so a man named Bill Clinton barely won the vote. Name power is still the name of the game for the younger Bush."

Results from the 1992 Election:
William J. Clinton 370 (Electoral votes) 44,909,889 (Popular votes)
George H. Bush 168 39,104,545
H. Ross Perot 0 19,742,267

(Results from infoplease.com)

Is this honestly your idea of "barely winning the vote"?
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       03-20-2010, 7:08 PM Reply   
You like to dodge the amount government health care is costing about 1/4 of the population over 50% of the money spent on healthcare (government ran), but I will play along.

You just posted exactly what I said. If not for Ross Perot, Bush would have crushed clinton. Don't tell me that Democrats voted for Perot bud. He pulled those 19 million votes from Bush. It would have been over 56% to 43% and the electoral votes would have swung way the other way. I don't know where you get your math or understanding of issues. Because of Perot, Clinton actually won the vote with 7% less than a majority.

You in a couple of posts ago tried to tie people using Osama and Obama and now it is the whole name. Which is it? You may not have thought it was cool. Many kids did. Why do you think that blacks and the youth actually came out and voted in mass for the first time in a very long time? Obama's qualifications were the worst for any candidate probably in the history of the position. Everyone loved to bag on Palin (VP candidate only) and Obama had even less qualifications. That can never be disputed.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-20-2010, 8:07 PM Reply   
"You in a couple of posts ago tried to tie people using Osama and Obama and now it is the whole name."

Reread my post and dispute that I didn't make mention of the name issue, you did not address the middle name issue. You said Clinton "barely won the vote". Now your speculation is that if Perot would not have been in the race, Bush would have won. You are basically saying that ONLY Republicans voted for Perot, and that is inaccurate. You cannot give everyone of those votes to Bush.

Obama had less experience? Obama's qualifications were the worst? How was Palin more qualified than Obama?

Sometimes your arrogance makes you blind to your ignorance.
Old    Mike (ponyh8r)      Join Date: Dec 2004       03-21-2010, 1:28 AM Reply   
Jeremy,

If you think Perot was pulling any significant margin of dem votes then you are the one who is blind.

Lefties will always perform the same tactics and it is amazing how the young fall for them. What kills me is the fact that people believe that everyone has a right to healthcare. The American Dream is just that....A dream. It is not a guarantee or a right.

Either way, Socialized healthcare will pass. And after 2014 when the real change to the industry happens, all that voted will be trembling the first time their parents or grandparents gets denied end of life care by "managed healthcare boards" because it is determined that it is more cost effective to let them die. It will happen.

Or the first time you throw out your knee on that Whirleybird and are denied seeing a specialist by your government assigned primary care manager because he is getting bonus payments to deny you access to keep costs down. It will happen.
Old    Jim Zarin (jimmy_z)      Join Date: Jun 2009       03-21-2010, 1:56 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by ponyh8r View Post
fOr the first time you throw out your knee on that Whirleybird and are denied seeing a specialist by your government assigned primary care manager because he is getting bonus payments to deny you access to keep costs down. It will happen.
That is a weak argument.

Insurance companies do that NOW!!!! Their bottom line is money, not your health. The oath that doctors have taken for years is preceded by a penny pushing desk-jockey that gets bonuses on denying you coverage.

And I personally DONT want healthcare reform, the way it stands at this point.
Old    Mike (ponyh8r)      Join Date: Dec 2004       03-21-2010, 4:31 AM Reply   
Ok Jimmy fair point. But that really depends on your insurance company, your policy and what you can afford. All in all, i would much rather private companies run this stuff the the feds. They are bound to screw it up.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-21-2010, 10:18 AM Reply   
Quote:
Insurance companies do that NOW!!!! Their bottom line is money, not your health. The oath that doctors have taken for years is preceded by a penny pushing desk-jockey that gets bonuses on denying you coverage.
While taken to the extreme by a company is wrong and will eventually hurt its reputation and money making ability, this attitude is far too prevalent these days and not questioned often enough. Of course the insurance companies are in business to make money - duh. They want to make money while providing a product to insure your health. If they always prioritize your health over profit they will soon be no longer insuring your health. Why should this be viewed as wrong?

Are you working at your job hoping for a salary decrease next year? Or when a bad circumstance hits your company do you volunteer your salary to help make up for it? Are you working for free so that the company and customers are really happy (because they would be)? While we all get altruistic and other benefits from work, are you not there to make money for yourself to support your family, make some coin for fun (boats & wakeboards, etc.). Do you not cut costs in your own personal budget, changing to cheaper service providers (gardeners, contractors & the like) , buying more cost effective products, etc.?

Do companies need to be regulated for basic standards and ethics? Sure. But why is making money bad, corporate, personal or otherwise?

It's about choice. I made mine a couple years ago by changing to a cheaper insurance company for the same benefits. They're getting expensive so I maybe looking again. The company that can provide the service I want for a lower cost deserves to make money if they can figure out how. Doesn't that profit motive give them incentive to do so? Aren't you trying to figure out how to make more for a living next year, in 5 years and in 10 years? Evil, you.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-21-2010, 12:19 PM Reply   
"What kills me is the fact that people believe that everyone has a right to healthcare."

Its nice to know that you feel someone has more entitlement to life than someone else based on the ability to afford it or not. This seems to be the "death panel or healthcare boards" you envision if changes to our current healthcare occur.

And Andy bad analogy. If you are going to pay more for something, don't you expect more in return? My premium increases more each year (at a higher percent than my pay increases), but my benefits stay the same, and in a couple of instances, decrease. And I don't see many people getting 10, 15 , up to 30% pay raises each year.
Old    Andy Graham (ottog1979)      Join Date: Apr 2007       03-21-2010, 12:32 PM Reply   
My post was mainly a response countering the notion that it's BAD that health insurance companies make money. That's it. Total healthcare costs have MANY causes, health insurance being a small one of MANY. Targeting them solely (or any other cause solely) is way too simplistic.


Quote:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/healt...ory?id=9036632

"Insurance company profits in the large picture have very little to do with the overall rising cost of health care," said health care expert Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

Carroll and others pointed out that the profit margins the health insurance companies report -- often below 5 percent -- pace some industries and lag behind many others.

"From a net margin basis, it's not that much," said Steve Shubitz, an analyst at Edward Jones. "The bottom line is any business needs to make money. That's why you're in business."
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       03-21-2010, 2:43 PM Reply   
How can healthcare possible be a right. Rights are free. They don't cost others. Your right to free speech doesn't mean the TV station has to give you a 30 sec spot for free. Your "right" to health care means someone will have to pay for it if you can't or don't want to. I think I should have the "right" to a new boat every couple of years at government ( someone else's hard earned money) expense.
Old    Scott (magicr)      Join Date: May 2004       03-21-2010, 3:05 PM Reply   
Quote:
Either way, Socialized healthcare will pass. And after 2014 when the real change to the industry happens, all that voted will be trembling the first time their parents or grandparents gets denied end of life care by "managed healthcare boards" because it is determined that it is more cost effective to let them die. It will happen.
Way too funny! Keep on drinking the koolaid.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-21-2010, 5:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by dennish View Post
How can healthcare possible be a right. Rights are free. They don't cost others. Your right to free speech doesn't mean the TV station has to give you a 30 sec spot for free. Your "right" to health care means someone will have to pay for it if you can't or don't want to. I think I should have the "right" to a new boat every couple of years at government ( someone else's hard earned money) expense.
Because healthcare keeps people alive, are you contending that people do not have the right to live because it may infringe on you?
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       03-21-2010, 11:28 PM Reply   
Food and shelter keep people alive too. I guess that's the next step. Let's pay for everyone's food and buy them all a house. I guess if it's a "right" we don't consider the cost, even if it will bankrupt the country.

Social Security and Medicare have $107 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities, which is what the government will still owe after it uses current and future tax receipts to pay for current and future benefits. This means that the federal government would have to have this much money in the bank today, accruing interest, in order to pay promises to future retirees. So what should our first priority be? Nope, you guessed wrong. We're not going to fix these looming problems. We're going to create another one just like them. Three's a charm!

Even if you made the assumption that health care reform is the greatest thing since sliced bread, you have to be delusional not to see the financial disaster that is in our future.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-22-2010, 4:54 AM Reply   
Quote:
No, that's reality. And I agree that term limits will do no good. That just means that special interests will have more power because the jobs will be bought with campaign dollars even more so than it is now. Changing the guard will only be effective if the American public does it with their vote, not with law.
That's why I would suggest public-funding (yeah I know, more money) for all candidates. There would have to be some sort of limit of course, but everyone would have the same amount of stipened. Remove all private funding and maybe this would be a start in the right direction.
Old    Skubz (bflat53212)      Join Date: Mar 2003       03-22-2010, 5:47 AM Reply   
Quote:
Another thing was, why did conservatives always refer to him using his full name, Barrack Hussein Obama? This was a failed tactic that the GOP would figure that since Obama shared a named with the ruthless leader of Iraq, the American public would associate the name with Islamic terrorists.
Jeremy, come on man! It was Barrack who first used his full name as a way to endear himself to the world. It was only after he stopped using it for political reasons that conservative talk show hosts kept referring to him by the full name as a dig on his using it in the first place.

Funny, in your eyes, it's the conservatives fault again.
Old    Keith (rkg)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-22-2010, 6:42 AM Reply   
Can someone help me understand why tort reform is not a major part of this bill or even brought up? Several issues listed by people in regards to health care issues have tort at the core. doctors shuffle you from specialist to specialist becasue they are practicing defensive medicine to prevent a lawsuit, or at least minimize the risk. Health care costs go up continually as lawsuits continue to grow. Look at malpractice costs in states with caps and tort reform versus those without.

what blows me away is people are willing to accept a completely flawed bill just for the sake of getting movement, incredible. Instead to trying to work through this, they will just ramrod because they can. Nice way to bully legislation, nice way to govern the people (the majority of which do not want this bill). Why could the government not fix the current public health system to meet needs and enact certain rules protecting those who need major medical but can not pay. Thos two things should cover everyone without rippiing apart the entire system.

Yay, they won one for Obama. Seems they care more about enacting this for him and cheering that on than really taking care of the issue.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-22-2010, 6:48 AM Reply   
Quote:
Can someone help me understand why tort reform is not a major part of this bill or even brought up?
Ahh yes, the major missing item... but why? Wonder if it has anything to do with the # of Lawyers who are also in Congress?
Old    AMO (amo)      Join Date: Jan 2009       03-22-2010, 7:10 AM Reply   
Jeremy, have you ever owned a small business? Have you ever earned a living for yourself? Are you still on scholarship from your parents?

I ask because I don't like to assume. I think you need to understand the national economic repercussions of this bill passing. Without going into detail (because I hate typing), it's not good. I agree that something needs to be done with healthcare reform and no one life is worth more than another, but this is irresponsible legislation at a time when we are still in the infancy of an economic recovery from the worst collapse since the great depression. Makes me question the CBO when one party, republican or democrat, is so hell-bent on certain legislation passing.

It makes more sense to me to do responsible and common sense financial reform first, then tackle healthcare in a bi-partisan fashion. This hasn't just divided congress, this has divided a country.
Old    Keith (rkg)      Join Date: Apr 2002       03-22-2010, 7:12 AM Reply   
Well put AMO!
Old    Benjamin (bendow)      Join Date: Sep 2005       03-22-2010, 7:20 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by amo View Post
This hasn't just divided congress, this has divided a country.
True, but I think in many ways it has united the country. Unfortunately I believe something like this needed to happen so the American people will stand up and vote these irresponsible losers out.
Old    Dennis (dennish)      Join Date: May 2005       03-22-2010, 7:27 AM Reply   
Jeremy,
So why do doctors and hospitals charge for their services? Should be free. If it is a "right" then it would have to be free for all. I need a car to get to the free doctors office. A Ferrari would be nice and free fuel to go in it. Happiness should be a "right" as well. I would be happy in Bill Gates house on the lake. I am staring Medicare in the face and it won't be but a few years before I get rationed care. Hope I don't get something that is not "cost effective" to treat.
Old    Manzo (zo1)      Join Date: Aug 2002       03-22-2010, 7:45 AM Reply   
Quote:
This hasn't just divided congress, this has divided a country.
This has done nothing new IMO. We have always been divided. The only time you see unification is after catastrophic events. We saw it after 9/11, but since that was not really all that catastrophic in the big picture the unification was fairly short lived.


Quote:
If it is a "right" then it would have to be free for all.
Really? I guess that we don't really have the right to bear arms then since we actually have to pay to purchase the guns?

Sorry Dennis, but the rest of your post about rights and stuff being free is jibberish...

Last edited by zo1; 03-22-2010 at 7:48 AM.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 3:15 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us