jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (43 posts)

A Disgraceful Web-site

  1. fishskinfreak2008 profile image30
    fishskinfreak2008posted 6 years ago

    Web-site/URL: http://callmebarbara.com/boxer/healthca … bAod9BETJg

    This is the worst web-site ever. HEALTHCARE REFORM IS A NECESSITY. "Repealing" and starting over is not an option

    1. leeberttea profile image61
      leebertteaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Tell that to Greece. They are being forced to scrap their health care in order to be bailed out by the rest of Europe.

      http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … 21&p=2

      Repeal may happen especially if the courts find the bill unconstitutional. Even if they don't, with American debt levels rising more rapidly than projected and to unprecedented levels, health care may become a victim of our own economic irresponsibility, or at the very least become way more expensive and less accessible than it is now.

      If there is a way to make health care cheaper and more accessible without government intervention than it ought to be explored without being driven by politics. This bill was rushed through and was nothing but politics driven.

      1. Sufidreamer profile image82
        Sufidreamerposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ???????????

        Obviously 'Investors' don't read Greek newspapers. That pearl of wisdom certainly passed the Greek journalists by.

        We don't even have free health care in Greece - we pay insurance, so I am not quite sure what your point is.

        Things are not pretty here, but at least try to get your propaganda straight - the issues have little to do with healthcare. Bloated civil service and corrupt politicians - yes, healthcare, no smile

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Isn't healthcare a part of civil services in Greece? wink

          1. Arthur Fontes profile image89
            Arthur Fontesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            FROM:   http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi … ?id=534021

            Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.

            The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."

            This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."

            Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.

    2. TMMason profile image73
      TMMasonposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It is getting repealed kid. Get used to it. We are not socailist and will not abide a takeover of our lives through healthcare.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        David Frum is a Conservative columnist and author and former advisor to President Bush. He wrote the following -

        "Some Republicans talk of repealing the whole bill. That's not very realistic. Even supposing that Republicans miraculously capture both houses of Congress in November, repeal will require a presidential signature.

        More relevantly: Do Republicans write a one-sentence bill declaring that the whole thing is repealed? Will they vote to reopen the "doughnut" hole for prescription drugs for seniors? To allow health insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions? To kick millions of people off Medicaid?

        It's unimaginable, impossible."

        You have a better chance or reinstituting slavery in the South.

    3. Misha profile image76
      Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for promoting the site! Very noble deed of you. smile

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        I know, Right?

    4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Carly Fiorina is a little dipshit.

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        She just wants to do for all the US what she did for HP.

        (For those who don't know - she ran the company into the ground.)

  2. DevLin profile image60
    DevLinposted 6 years ago

    With it costing $115 billion more than they thought, and premiums are now for sure to rise on certain people, it's starting to look worse than they even thought

    1. tony0724 profile image60
      tony0724posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Oh and by the way that stipulation of keeping your kids on there till 26 is gonna be dropped too

  3. Cagsil profile image61
    Cagsilposted 6 years ago

    Hey DevLin, is that a surprise?  lol lol lol

    1. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not really!

  4. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    Bad legislation is still bad legislation.

    The current Obamacare Law is only going to hurt the poor even more.  Conveniently both Republicans and Democrats excluded themselves from participation.  How convenient.  They have "their" care and the public gets the "leftovers".

    Food, Water, and Shelter a necessities.  Health Care in it's current form isn't Health Care at all... it's "Sick Care"... and the game that is being played is to force people to pay into a socialized system based on the notion the people have some kind of "right" to services.  They don't.

    Should I be FORCED to subsidize medical care for a population that contains 30+ % smokers? Should I be FORCED to subsidize sick care for those who can not control their dietary habits?

    Health care is not a right, it's a privilege.

    If people care about their health they would take care of themselves... not expect Doctors to be able to magically fix them after years of abuse.

    Once again there is nothing wrong with implementing a system of Health Care that is based on Health and not Sickness.  But there are those people who will always feel entitled to something for nothing.

    All this Law does is penalize Doctors and Patients, and raise costs.

    Do you really think it will be easier to get in to see a Doctor when the Federal Government is cutting their pay?  And how will the poor pay for the Mandated Coverage?  If they could pay they would already have insurance.

    Insurance is NOT Health Care.  Smart people have figured this out, the rest of the population is still living in their bubble of expected Socialized Privileged.

    1. profile image0
      Home Girlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      There is no easy solution. Health care is NOT a privilege! At some point you need it  - rich or poor, with money or without it. Smoker or not, you'll need it and have a right to get it. I am willing to pay for it as long as I am working , knowing that in case I lose my job, I will get it anyway, because somebody else who is working will be paying for it. Not all about socialism is bad, thought there is no easy solution. Too complicated, too many interests involved, way too many funds are wasted needlessly already. And I completely agree that Health Care should be based on Health not Sickness. Doctors should be paid for ability to treat successfully, not for drugging people with way too many medications without a result, or with bad results, as it happens in Canada very often, I am afraid. it's a sad thing.

      1. DevLin profile image60
        DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        They were going to operate on me for $100K. Found out what I need is only $5K. I can't have it, so they just dope me up for the pain. That's also through the feds. VA health care.

        1. profile image0
          Audreveaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see healthcare as a privilege either. Anyone can get sick, people fall down with sudden illnesses they didn't even know they had. I think we all should share the risk and financial burden of looking after health issues.

          Some illnesses cost a fortune to manage, others just need a few painkillers and some time off work. It's not fair to expect a family to deal with the onerous expense of some horrible fluke disease all on their own.

          I don't know really how the American system works. I don't get the concern though that your dollars might help someone else. So what? It's good to help each other.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "I don't get the concern though that your dollars might help someone else. So what? It's good to help each other."

            It's good to help each other and Americans are very big on helping each other, but when your money is taken at the point of a gun you are not helping each other, you are being coerced.

            So what? So, when enough of your money is taken from you, eventually you don't have enough to help others and are bound to be less inclinded to do so in any case.

      2. Sab Oh profile image60
        Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        "Health care is NOT a privilege! At some point you need it  - rich or poor, with money or without it. Smoker or not, you'll need it and have a right to get it. I am willing to pay for it as long as I am working , knowing that in case I lose my job, I will get it anyway, because somebody else who is working will be paying for it."

        Well, since it's a right, then everyone should have the right to eat the same quality of food, no matter how expensive. And to protect our 'right' the government really should outlaw food that is deemed unhealthy by some Czar or other, and all citizens should be required to do government-mandated exercises for a specified number of hours per day (perhaps while stirring, government-approved music or inspirational quotes from obama are piped in over loudspeakers posted throughout the country). Activities that might be risky should be banned, and everyone should be forced to take a series of government vitamins or face serious punishment. OUR RIGHTS MUST BE PROTECTED!

        1. profile image0
          Audreveaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I don't see those things as analogous at all.

          People get sick for a range of reasons - some preventable, but others they are just unlucky to have happen.  They live their lives and exercise free choices about what they eat, how they live etc and all public healthcare does in the way of interference is apply tax dollars as a safety net for all of us.

          There's nothing very totalitarian or excessive about it that I can see. You get sick, you want to know that regardless of your financial means, you can get help.

          Most people (I believe ... though maybe I'm wrong) do generally think everyone should have access to basic nutrition. If you're wealthy enough to go beyond that, fair enough. It's a very different matter than ensuring people have the means of survival. I can't afford caviar dinners, but I'd still like to be revived if I had a heart attack or something.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "Most people (I believe ... though maybe I'm wrong) do generally think everyone should have access to basic nutrition. If you're wealthy enough to go beyond that, fair enough."


            So you think that rich people should be healthier than poor people? I thought we were talking about a "right." Should rich people have more right to assemble than poor people? More right to a trial by jury? More right to free speech?

            1. alternate poet profile image77
              alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Rich people more rights?  Your Constitution was written by rich people, when they wrote 'the people' they meant them - not you.

              The basic issue with health care is that it is a human, humane, concept that we help sick people.  Hospitals have this dilemma daily, poor people with no health insurance need care, do you give it or leave them outside the back door to die?

              Mandatory Insurance, or some other form of health care solves that problem - on the right side.

              1. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "Rich people more rights?  Your Constitution was written by rich people, when they wrote 'the people' they meant them - not you."


                So you, in all your foreign and irrelevant wisdom, have determined that our Bill of Rights is just for rich people? No wonder we beat your asses and threw you back across the Atlantic. Thanks for the input 'mate.'

              2. Sab Oh profile image60
                Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                "  Hospitals have this dilemma daily, poor people with no health insurance need care, do you give it or leave them outside the back door to die?"

                We have never left people outside to die and we have long had programs and policies regarding care for those who couldn't pay. Thanks for adding more ignorance to the discussion. Most everyone agrees we need to reform the system, but the MAJORITY of Americans (AMERICANS, the only ones whose opinion matters in this case) did NOT want the mess obama, his cronies, and the corrupt SOBs in the congress forced on the country through underhanded means. YOUR opinion is noted and duly disregarded.

                1. alternate poet profile image77
                  alternate poetposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  I am well aware that I am not American - It is just becoming so clear that you really need help. 

                  It is becoming so normal to see such uneducated little rants as yours in the forums that the number of dimwits seem to be greater than those who can at least put together an argument without racist abuse, name calling and general playground behaviour. I guess they do not put a high priority on manners in whatever little backwoods college you failed to graduate from.

                  Go look up your history book if you ever had one, I am sure you can work out who wrote your constitution passed it - none of them poor I think ?

                  1. profile image0
                    Audreveaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Ah - you're English. Australia inherited a lot of British attitudes about social justice etc.

                  2. Sab Oh profile image60
                    Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    "I am well aware that I am not American "

                    And don't think we don't appreciate it!

                    "It is becoming so normal to see such uneducated little rants as yours in the forums that the number of dimwits seem to be greater than those who can at least put together an argument without racist abuse, name calling and general playground behaviour."

                    Thanks for more personal insults. What exactly was "uneducated" about my c omments? Where exactly was there "racism"?

                    " I guess they do not put a high priority on manners in whatever little backwoods college you failed to graduate from."

                    I don't recall any "backwoods" from my undergraduate years, but it seems you missed out on not only US History but also basic logic.


                    "Go look up your history book if you ever had one"

                    Thanks for the friendly advice. I will look up all of the dozens of history books here.

                  3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    http://c2.api.ning.com/files/48LXeRxqEPqwIviWbUWDHLshwGaaBknmSSdkOQPacz3IazqJFEBIOswQL9gTXlndozEkb2fZtcWg54fg*Bi2NY1ST4IO*Ny2/DontFeedTheTroll.jpg

            2. profile image0
              Audreveaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I think everyone deserves at a minimum the assurance of adequate healthcare and nutrition. I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to eat caviar (or that it makes you any healthier).

              A lot of the stuff that the wealthy can afford beyong basic nutrition is probably just excess. It may even be detrimental to good health rather than giving them something better than others.  I'm just talking about what you need in order to be healthy and adequately nourished. Dickensian gruel is not balanced nutrition  and dining out at the ritziest restaurant in town is not required.

          2. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "There's nothing very totalitarian or excessive about it that I can see. "


            And if someone showed up at your door with a gun and forced you into a car, drove you to a vitamin shop and told you to buy some vitamins or else, would that be totalitarian or excessive?

            1. profile image0
              Audreveaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Oh yes. That would be excessive.

              Are they doing that in the States? Our health system isn't forced on anyone, but it's there to avail of.

              MInd you - it's an expensive thing to run and healthcare is always up for political discussion in Australia as well. Staffing levels, maintenance, beds... availability of the health resources. Not affording healthcare is one thing, but when it's free and you can't get a bed - obviously that's a big problem too.

  5. Doug Hughes profile image60
    Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago

    Any legislator who want to repeal health care is talking about INCREASING the deficit by 1.3 TRILLION according to the last estimate of the bill done by the Congressional Budget Office.

    Any wingnut want to answer that?

    A study by Harvard showed that 45,000 people die every year for lack of health care - people who would NOT die if health care WAS available.

    Repeal and condemn a half-million Americans every decade to preventable death. Aside from fatalities, the human suffering that can be reduced is beyond estimation.

    Any wingnut want to answer that?

    1. DevLin profile image60
      DevLinposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Not spending a trillion on "health care" will raise the deficit?

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You didn't get  the memo? The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office 'scored' each version of the Health Care Bill for cost. The final version, now law, will reduce the deficit compared to doing nothing, by  1.2 Trillion dollars.in the second decade that the law is in force.

        An argument to repeal is an argument to increase the deficit. This isn't hyperbole - it's mathematics.

        1. Misha profile image76
          Mishaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Nah, it's a wishful thinking smile

    2. Sab Oh profile image60
      Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Repeal and condemn a half-million Americans every decade to preventable death. Aside from fatalities, the human suffering that can be reduced is beyond estimation."

      Disingenuous hyperbole

      1. Doug Hughes profile image60
        Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Also fact.

        1. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          No, hysterical (and 'hopeful' in a sick way) speculation

  6. JON EWALL profile image47
    JON EWALLposted 6 years ago

    HUBBERS

    This week the Democrat Congress will be voting to spend another $300 billion, increasing this years deficit to $1.9 trillion.

    The Democrat controlled Congress is bypassing '' pay-go '' legislation and calling the request an emergency bill.

    '' The Just Say No Crowd ''Republicans will again be voting NO ,since the funds required will increase the deficit.

    Doug's hub states
    The final version, now law, will reduce the deficit compared to doing nothing, by 1.2 Trillion dollars .in the second decade that the law is in force.

    The second decade, that's 10 years into the future. If anyone believes the CBO, they need to see a doctor, especially the way Obama and Congress refuses to reduce spending.

    1. Doug Hughes profile image60
      Doug Hughesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      So by Jon's logic - repeal the bill and INCREASE spending by 1.2 Trillion. Nobody knows exctly what will happen in 10 years but the Health Care Law REDUCES the deficit. Repealing it will INCREASE the deficit.

 
working