jump to last post 1-39 of 39 discussions (327 posts)

50 million Americans uninsured and that's ok because.....?

  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Just read the revised (upward, of course) number of Americans without health insurance. 
    I'm hoping someone here can explain to me how this is better than Obamacare?
    Seriously.

    The number of people lacking health insurance increased to 49.9 million, a new high after revisions were made to 2009 figures. Losses were due mostly to working-age Americans who lost employer-provided insurance in the weak economy

    http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/ … YNUDH/D5/h

    1. lady_love158 profile image59
      lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      How many of those are without insurance by choice? Don't assume that just because someone doesnt have insurance that they can't afford it.

      1. Maddie Ruud profile image82
        Maddie Ruudposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Insurance is incredibly expensive, so even people who perhaps "could" afford it might "choose" not to, because it would mean barely scraping by, or cutting into their cushion.  I'm not sure that's much of a choice at all.

        1. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sure sounds like a choice to me. If you're young and healthy why waste money on health insurance? It's not like if you don't have it you'll go to jail.... oh wait thats right, soon that will be the case!

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That's the equivalent of waiting til your house is on fire before getting an insurance policy.

            1. thebigbagblog profile image61
              thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In the other hand, having too much health insurance can work agains you; doctors will milk the insurance for every penny and will do all kind of experiments even when ther is no (or very little) chance of recovery
                How do I know that to be a fact? I lived the experience for over 3 months during my husband's illness. The total bill was 2 millions, 389 thousand dollars
                Not that I feel bad for Blue Cross for having paid the bill, but it breaked my heart to see my husband suffer, so the hospital can make more money by doing unnecessary tests just to rule out a 2% chance of this or that.

                Is that criminal or what? Ther is still any wonder WHY health insurance is costing everyone (including businesses) so much?

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, I know and that isn't an easy nut to fix.

          2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            LaLo - Freedom scares liberals. Don't try to make sense of it.

        2. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That was my reaction practically verbatim, Maddie.  Well said.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        How many of those people cannot get insurance at any price, even if they were somehow able/willing to pay for it?

        But more to the point,
        I'm really surprised that our pro-business hubbers aren't all over the concept of universal health care.
        Don't you think that saddling employers with paying for healthcare benefits for their employees cuts into their profitability?
        Doesn't that added cost make them less competitive globally?

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "Pro-business" is in name, only. GOP policies tend to favor certain industries with a history of very generous campaign contributions and heavy lobbying efforts. My father, a long-time small business owner, left the GOP in disgust almost 20 years ago, and he considers that "pro-business" line as not applying at all to small businesses.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            We're sympatico on that, LL.
            See other thread wherein it is explained that the reason businesses are draining jobs overseas and not hiring (or saving or investing) here in the US is because of government regulations.
            I'm guessing your dad's business was not unduly burdened by federal regs?
            Honestly, my dad worked in the paper industry for decades. I never once heard him complain about the EPA. Come to think of it, I never heard him complain about the labor unions, either. Oh wait, those were private-sector unions. Guess that kind is ok smile.

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Nope, he never complained about regulations. He was a brilliant inventor, so as long as intellectual property rights were protected, he did quite well. The whole "government regulations" b.s. is just that. The vast majority of those complaining don't seem to be entrepreneurs themselves...

              1. Reality Bytes profile image94
                Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                So if a State regulates, let's say sales tax collections through online purchases, that regulation does not inhibit individuals from pursuing commercial endeavors?

                1. livelonger profile image90
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  If your company relies on a relative tax advantage and nothing else, you don't really have a sustainable competitive advantage. The state shouldn't be doing innovation for you.

                  1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    On this one I think you gotta admit, LL, that California's taxing of Amazon.com puts us at a HUGE competitive disadvantage. No?

        2. lady_love158 profile image59
          lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Employers aren't forced to pay for your health insurance, they do it to attract workers. Under Obamacare though they will be forced to provide it or pay a fine (unless they get a waiver). For the most part the fine is cheaper than the insurance so you will see companies paying for the fine and employees being forced into the "exchanges" to get coverage. In addition, employers that provide so called cadilac plans will have to pay an additional tax so they too will likely drop or reduce coverage, so much for you can keep your insurance promises. There is just so much wrong with this bill that it can't be tweaked. Really the best way to provide insurance is to make sure there are enough jobs for everyone. Unfortunately Obama is doing the exact opposite.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No. The best way to provide insurance is to dissociate it from employment.
            Which for a lot of people it already is (Medicare, Medicaid, state coverage for low income people).
            If we can cover some citizens, why not all citizens?
            Why should the employers be involved at all???
            That's anti-competitive, especially for smaller companies.

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And the fact that employer-sponsored health benefit costs are rising much, much faster than taxes would ever be politically feasible to raise on the middle class.

              1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Maybe I'm really stupid or naive.
                But wouldn't spreading the insurance risk across a much wider net (read: ALL Americans) serve to bring the cost per person DOWN?
                And maybe, just maybe, if health care DELIVERERS were not in a constant battle with the insurance companies to exact (even partial) payment for their services, but instead could concentrate on patient care, HC delivery could actually come down, also??

                1. livelonger profile image90
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, that does require forcing the heretofore healthy 30 year olds in that debate scenario to pay (and be net contributors) to a system they will almost certainly eventually be net beneficiaries of down the road.

                  You kill the individual mandate, and you kill universal healthcare. And the Republicans know it.

                  And it's utterly gratuitous to say so, but you are neither stupid nor naive. tongue

            2. lady_love158 profile image59
              lady_love158posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Employers are involved because government interference with the free market has made insurance too expensive for individuals and as I said this started as a benefit to attract and keep workers, but government stepped in and dictated the terms requiring insurance companies to provide coverage that people didnt want or need, like anti smoking program coverage for non smokers or pregnancy coverage for people that didnt plan on having kids.

        3. Bendo13 profile image87
          Bendo13posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm uninsured because I don't need it.

          Insurance is a rip off and forcing people to pay for insurance is a way to dissolve a freedom... a freedom of choice.

          Yes, you can save money by not paying for insurance!
          Even if you get sick and have to pay for things out of pocket, look how much you've shelled out for insurance over the long run....

          And guess what?  Your body is a beautiful thing that can heal itself if you feed it correctly and get enough sleep.

          Hopping over to the doctor every single time you have a little sniffle will not only hurt your wallet but it will hurt your body because you're not letting your immune system do its job... which means you'll get sick easier because you aren't building up immunity.  But of course serious illnesses and broken bones are a bit different.

          Oh and if they do enforce that fine for not having insurance... guess what?  It's a lot cheaper than paying for insurance all year!

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You might be surprised what a week in the hospital costs, let alone a heart bypass or hip replacement or chronic diabetes.

            1. Bendo13 profile image87
              Bendo13posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm sure it can cost a lot...
              But you'd be surprised at how easy it is to avoid being in the hospital by simply living a healthy life.

              There are so many things that people pay thousands of dollars for which could have be avoided if they just took care of themselves.  Sure junk food tastes good, sitting around watching TV is relaxing and all the other harmful things we do make us feel good for a moment... but think of those lovely hosptial bills you speak of.

              You can easily keep your heart healthy, your bones strong and keep your blood sugar in check by eating well and staying active... heck, cancer actually has a cure (Look of up the Gerson therapy) but that hasn't gone mainstream... why?

              Because there is a lot of money to be made from cancer therapies, so much that they poisoned Dr. Gerson twice as he was trying to publish his studies on how he cured people with so many "incurable" diseases.

              There is so much fraud in the medical industry and the fact that some places won't treat you without insurance is just them pushing the theft of insurance on people...

              I look forward to the day that true cures are used by all doctors... that we stop treating symptoms and wipe out the CAUSE.

              1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                How much does it cost for a day at the hospital?
                Here is what has happened - first hand experience: $12 thousand for intensive care (my husband spent 33 day in intensive care) over 1000 a day for regular treatment (medication, supplies, etc) two heart surgeries at $90 thousand each, plus rehab and the rest  = over 2 millions in hospital expences.
                Thank God we had insurance that covered the bills. Since my husband passed away, I have a Cobra health insurance and I am paying $531.24 a month

                1. barryrutherford profile image34
                  barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow! I pay $73 a fortnight  Australian here...

                  1. Petra Vlah profile image61
                    Petra Vlahposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I know, Barry, so do many other civilized country, but don't you ever forget it - America is still the "best" and the "envy" of the world; we "respect" human rights and "take care" of our own - the homeless veterans and the ones that can't affors health insurance are just lazy bums

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            One year my family had myself, my son and my wife (twice) with hospital stays.  None of which would have healed by themselves; 2 stays were to avoid death.  There was advance notice for none of it.

            Although decades age, total bills were over $200,000; many years salary.

            May it not happen to you, but it could.  That one year cost more than 40 years of paying insurance through our employer plans.  One bad car accident can easily cost more in health costs than a lifetime of insurance bills.  If you can afford it, fine.  If not?

            1. Bendo13 profile image87
              Bendo13posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "But of course serious illnesses and broken bones are a bit different."

              All I'm saying is we should have a choice, that's what living here is all about... I choose to not have it and to try to live as healthy and safely as possible.

              I cannot control what others do and if someone smashes into my car then that happens... but those who chose to not be insured also have the choice to save up money for such accidents.

              I almost think paying for all this insurance for everything makes people live in fear.... what if... WHAT IF!?

              I don't want to live like that.

              If it happens, it happens and then you deal with it...
              Save when you can and don't plan for the worst because when your mind is on the worst then that's what you'll get.

              If you weren't paying in all this money for life, home, medical and auto insurance... think about how much you could put in savings each month and then YOU control what's done with your money and YOU say when that money goes toward certain bills.

              And let's not forget about the interest you'd earn on your savings.

          3. leahlefler profile image98
            leahleflerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Our insurance is expensive, but our out-of-pocket costs would be completely unaffordable if we didn't have insurance. Our son almost never goes to the pediatrician (we avoid docs for common viruses, etc) but his monthly medical bills are sky-high. 10 surgeries/procedures in four years, medication that would be approximately $2,000 per month without insurance, a C-Pap machine (insurance only pays part of that, and we're lucky they do - long story there), various tests and specialist follow-up appointments... the costs would have bankrupted us long ago without insurance.

            There are several things insurance doesn't cover, and we purchase those out of pocket (insurance doesn't cover hearing aids, for example - we send our son to school with $9,000 on his head every morning, and we hope he doesn't lose any of that equipment, lol)! Even those expenses have brought us to a standstill - I had to quit working because of the frequent medical appointments and therapies, so we are VERY fortunate that my husband has a job to provide insurance for our younger son's needs.

            Not every body is capable of "healing itself" and many medical conditions are extremely expensive - no one was more grateful for the protection of those with pre-existing medical conditions than me- if my son had a lifetime cap or if he was prevented from obtaining insurance in the future because of congenital medical issues, he would not be able to afford the costs of his medical care as an adult (several of his issues are expected to be life-long - some he might outgrow).

      3. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Does that include the illegals? If so, you'll have to subtract them out. Then subtract out the ones that choose not to have it as Lady Love pointed out. That number would probably be cut in half.

        The way it is now, they can get free health care by simply walking into the local emergency room. Don't believe me? Try going to one after about 5 or 6 PM. Bring a book, you'll be there a while unless you bring along an ICE hat.

        PLEASE NOTE: If you opt for the ICE hat, don't stand right in the doorway.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Not to be dense, Longhunter, but what is an ICE hat?
          ICE as in In Case of Emergency (like cell phones)?


          BTW, I've been at the emergency room twice in the last month with my son.
          Yes, they have an obligation to treat anyone/everyone who comes.
          But the care is not free to all.
          Hardly.
          In fact, those with insurance are subsidizing those who come in without.
          And the ER is an extremely inefficient (medically and financially) place to go for your regular health care.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            ICE - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Don't feel bad. I had to look it up to make sure.

            Yes, those with insurance are subsidizing those that don't have it. But, if you'd already broken the law to come here and were pretty sure if not completely confident the government wasn't going to do anything to send you back, would you care what the cost was or who it was going to be pushed off on.

            I was leaving the ER a little over a year ago and it looked like Buy One-Get One Free Taco Night in the Waiting Room.

            And the ER is an extremely inefficient (medically and financially) place to go for your regular health care. If you'd just come here illegally from Mexico, our ERs would seem like one heck of an upgrade, don't ya think? They use them like the free clinic because, for them, it is.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              lol

              You've taught me something here today, Longhunter!
              Where can I get me one of them hats?

              I can't disagree with you on the complexion of the ER waiting room. It might be the part of town where mine is, but I experienced a bit more diversity.
              To my (admittedly untrained) eye there were Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Latino and honestly, the majority were white (ranging from trailer trash to middle class).
              It would be fascinating to get an annual report from my health care provider breaking down the ethnicity of care recipients and how much "free" care they give away in the ER and hospital.

              Let's also not forget the vast number of drunks, addicts and homeless who get picked up and dumped in the ER on a regular basis. You think they're paying to be there? Hell no!!

              So it's not simply an illegals problem.
              It's a disproportionate number of non-paying "customers" vs. over-paying "customers."
              And I for one am really sick of being squeezed in the middle!!

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Just calling it the way I saw it.

                I would like to see the statistic as to how many were the "redneck - hey, y'all, watch 'is" crowd that seems to be so abundant in my neck of the woods. I may be a native Tennessean but I am college ed-u-micated. I have sense enough to know if you hear the words, "Hey, y'all, watch 'is!", stand back and watch!

                Call 911 and get your camera!!!

                Someone's going to get hurt and it's gonna to be one hell of a show!!!

                YEEEE HAWWWW!!! (Disclaimer: Be careful if you yell that in the South. That's a mating call in some parts of Kentucky, Alabama, and Arkansas.)

              2. 0
                Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, oh high-and-mighty-Mom you do have an untrained eye since you didn't stop that demeaning reference to "white trailer trash" before it came outta your mouth.

                1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Your selective outrage is quite amusing, Brenda.
                  I notice you are not chastising Mr. Longhunter for his comments about rednecks, even though he is an admitted college graduate.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    EASY LADIES!!!

                    My comments were intended as a joke. Since I'm from Tennessee, I can say things like that about fellow Southerners. It's kinda like a black person calling another black person the "N" word. They can do it but they get mad if someone else does it. Same with the "redneck" term.

                    As for MM's "white trailer trash" remark, I took it as it was intended. After a trip or two to our ER, I know where she's coming from. She was making a point countering my assertion most people using the ER as a free clinic as being of Hispanic heritage. Here where I live, that is the case.

                    1. Mighty Mom profile image90
                      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      In point of fact, LH, my reference to my "untrained eye" was actually about my inability to differentiate accurately between different types of Asians/Pacific Islanders.
                      I can't tell either by just looking or even hearing them talk whether a family is Chinese, Japanese, Laotian, Hmong, Vietnamese, Fillipino, Tongan, Samoan,Fijian, or of some other extraction (or mixed race!)

                      Nor can I tell whether someone I see is here legally or illegally. It's not like they have a giant "I" branded on their forehead!!!

        2. yellowstone8750 profile image59
          yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Are you referring to me? I m am an American and just want to see things improve. What is wrong with that?

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I want to see things improve as well, Yellar. That's why I'll be working to get Obama voted out in 2012.

            Since I wrote the post six weeks ago and you only joined three weeks ago, no, I wasn't referring to you personally. Only if you're from south of the border and here illegally would I be talking about you.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That's what people have been working actively toward since he got voted in.
              Voting Obama out without someone positive and forceful to replace him -- that's not improvement.
              This isn't a personal comment to you, LH. Just a general comment that simply removing Obama from the presidency in and of itself isn't "improvement"
              Replacing him with any of the candidates currently running
              (no comment on Ron Paul here so save your breath, Evan, if you're reading this)
              is going in the wrong, wrong direction (IMHO).
              MM

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I respect your opinion, MM. However, IMHO, anyone would be better than Obama. Am I completely happy of the group of GOP candidates? NO! But I do like Cain.

                I would love to vote FOR someone but, no matter what, I will vote for whoever is running against Obama.

      4. Greek One profile image80
        Greek Oneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population."

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          A little early in the season for such bah humbug, isn't it?
          lol

      5. reg420 profile image59
        reg420posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The problems of health Care is that Americans need it too much...

        First 15 million morbidly obese Americans, you don't see them, because they don't work and when you get to 500 pounds you stop going out in public and all are on some kind of care and they need it.

        Secondly the ridiculous costs of medical care and I know it's about lawyers and lawsuits, books education but...

        I have recently been diagnosed with a pituitary tumor, so I am getting shots of sandostatin. clinical trials found only effective 60% of the time,
        yet the doctors say it's my only choice of treatment.
        My current dose costs $4370.41 per shot,
        add $186 dollars for the nurse,
        $100 for office visit
        plus lab charges

        and they say I may have to take this stuff for the rest of my life?

        and you ask why health insurance costs so much

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'm very sorry to hear about your pituitary tumor.
          Although your example of the exorbitant cost of the drug is a huge part of the equation. Technology and drugs (before the patents expire) are $$$$$$$$$$$.

          At the risk of sounding cavalier -- I'm very empathetic -- have you thought about getting a second opinion?
          Or seeing an alternative medicine practitioner (acupuncture/Chinese herbs)??
          Good luck to you I really hope you will NOT have to be on this for the rest of your life!! MM

          1. reg420 profile image59
            reg420posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have researched my condition to a very high degree of what the internet has to offer. The bottom line is that according to the statistics on my condition I should have died ten years ago and with proper early diagnoses, would have extended my life until like yesterday...

            So the way I see it, they should be trying to firgure out why I am alive instead of trying to fix my symptoms, in any case I have decided one more shot and I am leaving medical care and going back on my own.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Good luck.
              I hope you find good health!

      6. Xenonlit profile image59
        Xenonlitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I crack up at the right wing lying. There are few rational adults who can afford health insurance, but would pass up the chance to have it.

        Sure, people would rather take a chance on running up a $40,000 hospital bill, then having wages garnished and going through bankruptcy.

        Yeah, right wing.  Keep throwing those round house punches and socking yourselves in the eye.

      7. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Interesting comment.  I am an artist and can therefore not be considered totally rational but on the subject of medical insurance (mistakenly referred to as health care), I have, to date, not found a policy that meets my 'value for service' standard.  Obamacare does not meet it either and I resent being forced to pay for something of which I do not approve.  By the way, I generally vote the conservative ticket.  So, IMO, you are not completely rational yourself, making blanket statements as you have.

      8. doodlebugs profile image82
        doodlebugsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        As a home worker, It costs me about $550 for Blue Cross, Blue Shield every 3 months. There are plans out there, but many Americans are so tapped out they can't even afford this amount. My plan has a 1 million dollar cap, so if I get hurt and it costs more than that, I'm screwed.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Gotta love Stevie Ray.

      9. Pollyannalana profile image79
        Pollyannalanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Obamacare seems to include free medical for all illegals, which we pick up the tab for besides feeding and housing them. Oh, but that is different and unrelated. Really? How is it they have medical now, right now, and all these citizens don't? We have to wait, they don't. There won't be a dime left once Hillary and Obama get done, they have no one stopping them. Why not? There can be no good ending here and forget insurance, that was just a ploy of politics. I just have this feeling that no one is in that White House, ever since they got there. No one is worried about us and never will be if it doesn't benefit them. The fools don't know where our money comes from and besides, they have a blank check.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          It helps to look to a neutral source for verifications of claims like this. The "free healthcare for illegal immigrants" has been debunked, along with more propaganda:
          http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven- … alth-care/

          1. Pollyannalana profile image79
            Pollyannalanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Debunk it all you want, there are many of us who see and know it for a fact. We don't need proof and if you are using government facts ...well..do some research. Better yet, go sit in your local social service office or one who has illegals in town, which is about everywhere anymore. See for yourself. How can people who speak no English or know nothing about anything be Americans? Their kids do all the talking and translating. This is an American? Wake up.
            Everyone should see this!
            http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigrati … oject.html

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There are plenty of people who speak "English" (if you can call it that) and  know "nothing about anything" (and seem quite proud of their ignorance).
              How can such people be Americans?

              My question is, of course, rhetorical.

              1. Pollyannalana profile image79
                Pollyannalanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Watch the video then lets talk. http://www.usmessageboard.com/immigrati … oject.html

                1. Pollyannalana profile image79
                  Pollyannalanaposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, this was pulled like a hot potato, which it was. There was a van driving through this complex of illegals living there all with new cars, usually two, not even having yard care to worry about, not a public housing you usually see and they said that so far this was to a tune of billions and built apparently just for these non-citizens over the Americans on waiting lists and they named the one who built the place saying it was super nice...what is this and why or who took the link down. Don't worry though, there are plenty more...look for them!

            2. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really says it all.

      10. emrldphx profile image61
        emrldphxposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        1 - Who is going to pay for it? We already have almost 15 trillion dollars in debt... $130,000 per taxpayer... how can we even hope to pay the interest on that as we keep adding and adding and adding?

        2 - Not everyone chooses to have insurance, as has been stated before. We carry health insurance for my wife because of a heart condition and my son because we worry, but not for myself.

        3 - Yes, hospitals have to 'treat' everyone who comes in, but not the same as if you have insurance. My wife almost died after being sent home from the hospital at a time when we didn't have insurance. They knew she was extremely high risk, even told us that, but couldn't do anything about it.

      11. GNelson profile image85
        GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Health insurance is a hugh rip off.  We needed a public option to counter all the for profit insurers that do whatever they can to deny a claim so they can pay dividends to the shareholders rather than pay for health care for the insured.  Profit is way more important than your health. 
        The same Rebublicans that don't want to provide health care to the masses gave the Drug companies a Trillion dollar gift with Medicare part D by requiring the Frderal Goverment to pay full price for drugs.  Insurance companies don't have to do that, they can negotiate a lower price.  Then the Republicans claim that Medicare is too expensive.  It is a rip off that you and I pay for every day. 
        Many of the shareholders are in the 1% that the Rebublicans represent.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well, unfortunately we have Ted Kennedy to blame (and he admitted as much).  If he hadn't opposed the Republican plan when they wanted to do this, we'd probably be a heck of a lot better off today.

          1. GNelson profile image85
            GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            That was before they all moved to the right and left the rest of us behind.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Ayup.

              It's too bad, though.  We had a chance and we blew it..  I'm almost certain they'll destroy all the gains made and it may be another fifty years before we get this.

              1. GNelson profile image85
                GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think the American people will give them 50 years.

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I hope you are right.. but I know an awful lot of very foolish people who hate "Obamacare".

                  The worst part is, they are right: it was a dumb compromise.  We need real, national health care.

                  1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
                    yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    As long as health care is for profit it won't happen.

                    1. Pcunix profile image91
                      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      I agree.  No argument from me on that.

                    2. GNelson profile image85
                      GNelsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      You got that right!!!!!!!!

                    3. 0
                      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Yellar, why would a doctor go through all they have to go through only to not make a profit. I guess you do what your job out of the goodness of your heart. Making money isn't a concern.

      12. Xenonlit profile image59
        Xenonlitposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The cheering at the Republican debate over letting a person die because they have no health insurance says it all about the opponents of universal health care or health care reform: They are mindless followers of extremist political dogma, not real thinkers. Good question!

    2. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

      McKinsey: 30% of Companies Plan to Cut Healthcare as Obama Reform Starts



      http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/Fir … /id/399103

      Possible explanation?

    3. frogdropping profile image86
      frogdroppingposted 5 years ago

      50% of that figure is too many. No matter how you look at it, living without health care because you don't have the financial stability to access it is deplorable.

      No one should be denied health care simply because they can't afford it.

      I'd like to see the opinions of those that can't, as opposed to those that can and therefore possess the basic right of not having to worry in the event that they become ill.

      As if you have to pay for that.

    4. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
    5. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago

      Support at GOP debate for letting the uninsured die

      Healthcare, and the role of a strong central government in providing it, is one of the key issues separating the GOP, which opposes Obama’s healthcare insurance overhaul. So it was no accident that the issue became part of the debate as host Wolf Blitzer posed a hypothetical to Paul, who is also a physician.

      “A healthy, 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides: You know what? I'm not going to spend 200 or 300 dollars a month for health insurance, because I'm healthy; I don't need it,” Blitzer said. “But you know, something terrible happens; all of a sudden, he needs it. Who's going to pay for it, if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

      “In a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him,” Paul replied. Blitzer asked what Paul would prefer to having government deal with the sick man.

      “What he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul said. ”My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not before —"

      “But he doesn't have that,” Blitzer said. “He doesn't have it and he's — and he needs — he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?”

      “That's what freedom is all about: taking your own risks.,” Paul said, repeating the standard libertarian view as some in the audience cheered.

      “But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die,” Blitzer asked.

      “Yeah,” came the shout from the audience. That affirmative was repeated at least three times. Paul, who has always had a reputation for being a charitable man, disagreed with the idea that sick people should die, but insisted that the answer to the healthcare problem was not a large government.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I saw that debate.  I highly doubt that everyone in the audience was interrogated to see if they're Republican or what.  Same with the previous debate where some of the audience cheered at the mention of the death penalty and the host used that as a point of accusation toward Rick Perry.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          True.  Do you think those that cheered for the death penalty and yelled "yeah" to letting an uninsured man die were more likely to be conservative or liberal?

          1. 0
            Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think those who approve of the death penalty would be conservative since that's a punishment that comes after justice has been handed down by a Court and isn't the average sentence (it's reserved for committers of heinous crimes).   The other's harder to tell because the whole healthcare debate has become so involved and twisted and monetarily-attached that it's just a huge mess all-around.

            1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
              Ron Montgomeryposted 5 years ago in reply to this



              And a large number of innocent victims.  But hey, what's a little collateral damage as long as we satisfy our thirst for revenge right?

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Wurd to that.

        But don't bother arguing - no one is listening.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this
          1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
            Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're right!

            Freedom DOES mean taking chances!

            YOU CAN'T LEGISLATE RISK AWAY.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It disgusts me that, with the amount of wealth available in this country, that our fellow citizens die from something as treatable as pneumonia.

              1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, if you look at the article....

                OH WAIT!! Nope! It isn't written in the article that LiveLonger posted!

                .... imagine that.... LiveLonger managed to pick the ONE article in the google.news search that didn't include the amount of money Kent Snyder spent on his disease.

                Surprise, Surprise.

                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … rance.html

                He spent well over $400,000 treating the disease!!!

                Why in the f**king hell does it cost $400,000 to DIE from "something as treatable as pneumonia", PrettyPanther?

                He spent $400,000 to cure his disease, and he STILL died from it.

                Answer me this, and I'll bother listening to your response.

                In the meantime, I have an answer to the question:

                "When the government spends the money it stole, its only aim with spending the money is be re-elected. Thus the politicians put money into "feel-good" things like health care. With more money flooding into the health care system, demand skyrockets, while supply stagnates. Thus prices have to skyrocket."

                This is the stuff you learn in the 2nd week of Econ 101.

                Wake up.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, Evan, I wasn't referring to only him, specifically, but to the many people who DO die of treatable illnesses because they put off getting care because they can't afford it.  This is a fact.  Now, I know that is okay with you as long as you personally get to choose whether or not to contribute to a system that would provide health care for all, regardless of income.  It is not okay with me.  I find it morally reprehensible. 

                  In answer to your question, I have no idea why it cost $400,000.  Your answer fails to take into account that government is more than just elected politicians.  Government is also composed of your fellow citizens, people like you and me, who want to do the right thing, and usually do. 

                  Can we agree that it is ridiculous that he had to die penniless, leaving the burden of his debt to his family, just because he wanted to receive medical treatment so that he might live?  I'm guessing probably not.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The Congress and President of this country are the people who appropriate our stolen tax money - consists entirely of elected people.

                    They chose to blow it on medicaid, SS, and medicare.

                    Demand shot up, so did prices. Blame government, not capitalism.

                2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                  uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  How about a different take on the whole life/death concept.  The world population is now 7 billion.  Global warming threatens life on Earth.  Americans are more responsible for global warming than any other group.  American greed takes huge amounts of wealth away from the rest of the world.

                  So if we want the world to be cleaner and richer than there needs to be fewer Americans.  If it takes private medical insurance to kill off Americans by natural causes, isn't that better than rounding them up and exterminating them for the betterment of all the rest of humanity?

                  300 fewer greedy polluting violent Americans - that would be a boon to humanity.  Destroy America and save the world.  It only seems reasonable.

                  1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    "Americans are more responsible for global warming than any other group."

                    This is no longer true: China outdoes us now.

                    We put more gases out there than anyone else EN TOTALE, but China will soon over take us.

                    However, if you're talking about "per capita" then the answer is still America. However (again), China's economy and living standards are growing dramatically year after year.

                    What does this mean? It means that China will DOMINATE the CO2 production VERY soon.

                    1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      And to continue: With world economies becoming more and more dependent on fossil fuels to expand, the prices of fuels will increase.

                      This will finally be the kick needed to begin getting off of gas and into renewable sources.

                    2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                      uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      China may pollute more but there are mitigating circumstances that assuage their guilt.  1) they aren't Americans(which means they are automatically morally superior)
                      2) they are still Communists(they have far more in common with Democrats and Europeans)
                      3) they are not white

                      The guilt of white, American, capitalist polluters is obvious.  Because liberals are also Americans, frequently white and capitalists, closet capitalists - like Barbra Streisand, or beneficiaries of capitalism the world would be a paradise with out them.  So the argument remains, an exterminated American population is a boon to all humanity.

                      It would be better to get it all done quickly and efficiently but Zyklon B is an environmental pollutant so we are stuck with the inefficient, but no less effective method of eliminating the burdensome American population, private medical insurance.

            2. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Really?

              It seems that the Wall Street bankers did exactly that - *their* risk, of course.

              1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wall Street Bankers legislated nothing - the Congress did.  One reason why there is optimism in today's headlines about the EU's restructuring Greek debt is that the baks who foolishly risked so much in Greece are taking a loss.  The government of the United States insulated the financial industry from taking any loss during the 2008 financial collapse.  Obama was right in line with GWB to insulate Wall Street and K Street from taking a "hair cut."

                1. Pcunix profile image91
                  Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  TheyBOUGHT the legislation, yes.  Bought it with dollars, with bullying, with threats and with lies.

                  1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
                    uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Really - how many divisions can Wall Street muster?  How many FBI agents actually work on Wall Street?  I bet they wish they were that powerful.  It is the desire of politicians to remain in power that encourages and rewards that kind of conduct among businesses.  What massive regulatory pressures can be brought to bare on the Senate as opposed to those to which business is subjected?  You get the flow of power exactly 180 degrees out of phase.

                    1. Pcunix profile image91
                      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      No, I have it exactly right.  It is you who does not understand how power works.

                    2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                      Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      "Really - how many divisions can Wall Street muster?" They seem to be able to "muster" the NYPD with a one minute phone call to Mayor Bloomberg.

                  2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                    Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, they BOUGHT the legislation.

                    BUT THE LEGISLATION WAS AVAILABLE TO BE BOUGHT.

                    WHO SOLD IT?!

                    Legislation shouldn't be a commodity.

                    Restrict your government so they can't sell your tax money.

                    1. Pcunix profile image91
                      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Yeah.  We'd like to do that.  The problem is that those nasty Constitutional rights keep getting in the way.

              2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Who gave them the money?

                The government?

                OK. That was easy.

    6. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 5 years ago

      Top Ten Reasons why 50 million uninsured Americans are OK:

      10)  They're not 'our sort' of Americans!
      9)  Statistics is a liberal plot!
      8)  The insurance premiums avoided represent a huge savings to the economy!
      7)  Hey, if they'd rather insure their cat, that's their right!
      6)  *Somebody* has to keep Emergency Rooms on their toes!
      5)  Health insurance is un-Constitutional anyway--did George Washington have health insurance?
      4)  It should be churches, not government, that looks after our health care, and those 50 million are probably atheists!
      3)  Well, hey, it's only 1 in 6!  Everybody knows that 5 out of 6 is pretty good, right?
      2)  Because lady_love158 SAYS it's OK!
      1)  Sickness and death are 100% NATURAL!

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        11. The reason every other developed country can cover all its citizens at substantially lower total costs is that we're inherently more unhealthy than everyone else.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Excellent point! and one I wanted to make earlier myself.  If there could be something done about feeding the population out of the chemical trough we might stand a chance. 

          I constantly hear the argument that 'I can't afford to eat healthy'.  I argue back that if one eats whole food, one is very likely to need less and eat less because whole, real food is full of what the body needs and recognizes as nutrition - something it can actually use.  The packaged stuff if full of what the body needs to 'do something about' and this is primarily what we are up against.

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I was actually being sarcastic.

            There are lots of people with poor eating habits, but their eating habits are not that much worse than those of inhabitants of every other developed country on the planet, that manage to cover every citizen for health care at much, much lower cost than we do.

            It's that kind of "can't see the forest for the trees" type of reasoning that you usually see with people arguing that we can't spend $1 million on butterfly research, when we're facing a $1 trillion deficit.

            1. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Regardless of whether or not you were being sarcastic, what I'm saying is true.  I don't believe Americans eat 'that much worse than those...of other developed countries'.  I believe most Americans eat a heck of a lot worse.  If you do much traveling to other 'developed' nations, you won't find super duper markets with 45 foot aisles of sugar laden cereals, 14 kinds of prepacked pizza, flavored sugared yogurt, or peanut butter complete with corn oil filler and suprise - it even comes with its own jelly already mixed in!  When I moved to the South from New Jersey I was amazed at the way people eat down here.  Most of them look like pigs because they eat like pigs.  Places like Cracker Barrel are always busy night and day because they put a ton of food on the plate.  If it doesn't have bacon grease and cheese on it, they don't want it.  How about a potato chip sandwich on Wonder Bread?  The only thing I wonder is 'is it really food?'

              I think medical insurance has its place but people really need to take responsibility for their health as much as possible.

    7. SomewayOuttaHere profile image61
      SomewayOuttaHereposted 5 years ago

      ...wonder what the cost of the current health care premiums (for those that pay) is compared to the actual health care costs provided by the health system...just my thoughts this a.m.

      recently i had to deal with insurance companies (health etc)....they're friggin' greedy.....handed it over to my lawyer to deal with...soooooo all the lawyers involved and the insurance companies will make a good profit...the actual costs of the need/incident before the insurance coverage was needed is another matter...i don't mind biz making a profit...but....there is a line....and at whose expense?....mine...even tho there was plenty of insurance coverage....insurance companies don't want to pay even tho you pay premiums...they find all of the loop holes they can, play on your vulnerability, then play games between insurance companies and lawyers....wasting money on the administration of it...and me?...i'm the least of their concern - i'm at the bottom looking up wondering what happened and why? since i trusted and paid and paid and paid....they're all busy 'feeding at the trough'.....when they get to the bottom of the trough - they'll throw a crumb my way, maybe....but they are 'piggies' - sooooo maybe I'll have to pay some more.....insurance companies & lawyers - f**@ them!

      my 2 cents this a.m.

      1. kashannkilson profile image61
        kashannkilsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You just hit the nail on the head. Private insurance companies are businesses.

        A business' only goal is to make more profit- if they are pay out more than they take in they don't survive. If they pay out a little bit more than they take in, the boss gets fired because they aren't making enough money.

        They can only raise premiums so much, or else they price themselves out of the market, thus they kind of have a cap on income.

        Subsequently to increase profit, they start looking at how to pay out less money. Harder, more confusing claim systems, more claim denials, less coverage for the same premium, etc.

        It's a simply principle: they more they pay out, the less money in the bank at the end of the quarter.

        And so the argument goes that because the government isn't in it for a profit, they will provide wider coverage at less expense.

        In practice however, Obamacare gets paid for by making it mandatory for people and businesses to pay into the fund, and people don't like getting told what to do with their own money.

        That's why you have people applauding the thought of letting Wolf Blitzer's hypothetical 30-year-old die on the gurney as opposed to the government telling them they have to pay into another fund.

        That being said, it's easy to make that call with hypothetical situations, but I have yet to hear a parent who has a 30-year-old son in ICU scream "Yup! Let him die, cause I hate Obamacare. He should have taken responsibility for himself. He didn't, so now it's between him and God!"

        1. 0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Personally, I wouldn't have applauded that.   That's why I think it must've been a group of Party-crashers who wanted to cause a stir (which they did) or else conservatives who simply think it's time people had the opportunity to take care of their own health care, AND that that COULD BE DONE if the health care industry was reformed.   I personally wouldn't even be so hard against "universal" healthcare IF it weren't for all the Obama-mandates inserted into it and the unconscienable aspects of some of those mandates.  American opinion was overwhelmingly against some of the insertions into "Obamacare",  yet it went through via political pressure.   Ground rule is that Obama is NOT supposed to be a lawmaker!  The President is supposed to preside over things and make final decisions on important issues,  not be a political activist/judge/Congress-bully like Obama is.

          And I will add that the healthcare industry CAN be properly reformed WITHOUT digging into Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid's funds.   All we'd have to do is do what's been suggested over and over and over even during the Presidential Campaigns 3 years ago--------find the fraudulent and unnecessary government grants and entitlements that go to stupid or unfeasible programs and cut those programs off totally or cut back on them until the economy gets back on-track.   And bring in revenue from drilling in America.  And bring in revenue by other means that almost ANY Congressperson can figure out, instead of keeping on allowing Obama and the Dems to distract from common-sense solutions.   Hard to see the forest for all the Democrat trees wavin' their leaves into everybody's faces.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image91
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "American opinion was overwhelmingly against some of the insertions into "Obamacare",  yet it went through via political pressure."

            The problem that most Americans had with the final bill is this individual mandate that's causing all of these legal squabbles (and will probably end up being ruled unconstitutional). Most Americans do not like the individual mandate. Further, most Americans actually wanted a government option (which was scrapped from the bill).

            I never understood why healthcare reform was a big problem. It could be very simple. Look:

            Whereas: Americans want access to affordable, quality healthcare, and
            Whereas: Americans are tired of listening to Congress (all of whom have affordable, quality healthcare) bicker about how to make quality healthcare accessible and affordable, be it therefore
            Resolved: that effective October 1, 2011, the health care package enjoyed by members of Congress shall be available for purchase by all US Citizens, and, be it further
            Resolved: that effective the same date, the aforementioned health care package shall be available free of charge to all US children, from the moment of their birth up to their twenty-first birthday.

            Finished. Can we vote on this?

            1. kashannkilson profile image61
              kashannkilsonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              It should be that easy, unfortunately part of Obamacare relied on employers paying in to the fund much like they do now for private insurance.

              Taking that away, you either make it unaffordable for the average - below average income folks, or the government has to pick up what would be the employer's part of the tab.

              Not saying it couldn't be done if it was really a priority, but in the current political climate, there is no way Congress would even entertain that sort of spending.

            2. couturepopcafe profile image60
              couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff - you mean members of Congress actually buy their medical insurance?  Gee, I thought it was part of their package.

    8. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      I was discussing this very thing last night over dinner with my 19-year-old son.
      He asked me a thoughtful question I could not answer.
      He asked me what other countries in the world have the same or similar private-insurance health care model as the US.
      I was stymied (not unusual for me, I know).
      I could name half a dozen countries with universal health care (and that's without even looking).
      But does ANY other nation have our model???

    9. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      What such people fail to understand is that:
      1.  They are already paying more money than required for their health care because the premiums they do pay are inflated to help cover the care that is given to uninsured for free. How is that fair?
      2.  Government mandated coverage is nothing new. The government already requires them to carry insurance. If they drive a car, they have to have insurance. Again, those who do pay their car insurance premiums are paying extra because some people don't abide by the law.
      3.  They are one layoff away from a smack upside the wallet. Anyone who has enjoyed employer-paid health care is in for a major shock when confronted with how much it REALLY costs. COBRA is a nice transition "benefit" but not exactly affordable (when you don't have a job).
      4. They are possibly also in for a rude awakening when they or a loved one is denied care, notwithstanding their so-called "coverage." It happens ALL THE TIME.

      As the cost of care continues to go up, you're absolutely right, kashannkilson.
      Insurance companies will continue to look for any possible way to extract the highest possible rates and pay out as little as possible in claims.
      Which means we, the consumers, are paying more money for less service.
      Unless you are an insurance exec, I cannot fathom why anyone would support such a system!

    10. DIY Backlinks profile image61
      DIY Backlinksposted 5 years ago

      Obamacare, just another government program we won't ever be able to pay for.
      Millions will lose their current insurance. That's a fact. Who makes medical decisions on what operation is needed or not needed? The government of coarse.

      Yea, I will sleep so much better knowing they got my back. Seriously, do you really want that kind of plan and have you really thought about the downside to this crap. I started out just like most "poor" and I have always had insurance.

      We need a plan for those that really can't pay for it and not for those who can and won't buy it. I don't want to pay for your insurance if your able to work, go get your own. I would bet most people who don't have insurance has cable, internet, big screen tv's, blackberry or iphone, car and I bet half own a house. I would bet very few people can't afford insurance and again, I do not wish to pay for those that can. The government has never ran anything efficiently so why would anyone be ready to give them more tax dollars for health care? They already robbed social security blind over the years. Give them more money? Are you out of your mind?

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You don't know how good you have it.
        Do you have any clue what it costs to pay for private insurance -- IF you are lucky enough to be "granted" coverage by an insurance company?
        Try the cost of your cable, car payment, cell phone and at least a week's groceries COMBINED.
        But I suppose you would suggest that people sell their homes so they can buy their health insurance on the open market?
        Yeah, that's a real charitable (not to mention economically practical -- not) solution. roll

    11. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

      It's OK because many of them choose not to pay for insurance.

      Yes, I'm aware that the cost of insurance is prohibitive, but the markets are what the markets are.

      Stealing money to pay for other peoples' insurance will only raise prices further.

      Economic laws are undeniable.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Do you run a car?
        Is it insured?

        What is the difference, you're stealing money off other people to get your cover.

        Is your home insured?

        What's the difference, you're stealing money off other people.

        Is your health insured?

        What's the difference, you're stealing money off other people.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Car insurance in my state IS mandatory, and thus IS theft.

          No argument there. I'm blowing about 100 a month on stuff that I've never used.

          Home insurance? Nope -not mandatory. I've saved a lot of money by not blowing my money on it.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I believe auto insurance should be mandatory.  Each of us has the 'duty of care' obligation to others on the road.  If someone hits me and doesn't have insurance, where does that leave me?  On the other hand, if someone doesn't have medical insurance, it doesn't affect me except inasmuch as my taxes/medical bills are raised to pay for those who don't plan to cover their own bills.

      2. yellowstone8750 profile image59
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What about the socialization of capitalism in the bailout? We can take of the 1% but the 99% are on their own. Capitalist economies are not supposed to be government subsidized.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you SO much on this.

          But to blame companies is ludicrous.

          Accountant: "Hey, CEO, I found out that if I give this guy $18,000 then he'll give us $3,000,000 in a couple of years"

          CEO: "Damn. That's one hell of an investment!"

          The problem is Government. RE-Make it illegal to bailout companies!!

          Amendments 9 and 10 are VERY clear in saying that bailouts are illegal.

          Grab your guns and make sure your government enforces its own rules!

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think you are a very dangerous person.  You say you are only half joking - armed insurrection is nothing to joke about.

            1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You're right, armed insurrection is nothing to joke around about.

              But neither is stealing my money and giving it to banks.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You know, I would never call my taxes "stealing", not even when used in a way I strongly disagree with.   

                It was a political decision that I think was wrong.  I suspect it came about from good intentions, raw fear, foolishness and threats - not necessarily in that order.

                But it was not "theft".

                1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                  couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Welcome to America, home of the naive.

    12. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 5 years ago

      "Economic laws?"  Every other developed country in the world does better, and now a fair number of developing ones, too.  We spend more and get less for our health dollar in the US.

      1. daskittlez69 profile image79
        daskittlez69posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You do realize in Canada the average worker pays between 22% and 30% of each check towards health care.  And as far as "Every other developed country in the world does better, and now a fair number of developing ones, too" their doctors in other countries do not make nearly as much money as they do here in the states.  According to a 2009 survey doctor's in Mexico make roughly 21ka year, Hungary 26k, Czech Republic 32k, Belgium 61k, Portugal 64k, Sweden 66k, Finland 68k, Australia 91k, France 92k, Canada 107k, Denmark 109k, Switzerland 116k, Netherlands 117k, UK 118k, and the U.S. 161k  this is for general practitioners.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Could you share the sources for both of these claims? (specifically: the proportion of Canadians' taxes spent on healthcare, and the average salaries for general practitioners in those countries)

        2. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I don't know about Canada and most of the other countries that you mention but I do know that here in the UK we spend about 8% of GDP on health care opposed to the roughly 16% that the US spends, and we don't get anything like as little as half the service that you do.

      2. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They do better? At what? Why is everybody always coming to America? Doesn't matter.

    13. kmackey32 profile image82
      kmackey32posted 5 years ago

      Health Insurance for me would cost more than I make a month.

    14. DIY Backlinks profile image61
      DIY Backlinksposted 5 years ago

      Well, all my friends I talk to in Canada and the UK tell me they don't even come close to doing better. Instead of asking the government or some media biased reporter or those involved in the politics of it all just ask the real people living in this grand healthcare system. I have not talked to one yet who thought it was better or that it cost less. Matter of fact my best UK friends tell me they actually buy private insurance because the government insurance doesn't cover everything and it's not worth much plus they have to wait longer to see a doctor on the public insurance. Sounds great if your in need of an operation doesn't it?

      Maybe we can split up and let the people who want to buy this junk fund it with their paychecks and use it and leave the rest of us alone. I am already forced to pay into one ponzi scheme already and that is enough.

      1. kerryg profile image88
        kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Th plural of anecdote is not data. Most of the UK and Canadian citizens I know (including most of the ones here on HubPages) think Americans are nuts not to have a health system like theirs and wouldn't trade theirs for ours for the world. Apparently we could both stand to broaden our circle of acquaintances. tongue

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "The plural of anecdote is not data."

          Actually, it is.

          Anecdotes are called "Interviews" or "Case Studies" in the social sciences.

    15. 0
      jami l. pereiraposted 5 years ago

      When America isnt America anymore
      Once a home of the brave and the free
      America's a travesty
      American born and bred
      Doesnt hold a candle anymore
      We're just an unheard ,unsung song
      Politicians killing her off forever is wrong
      As long as they get their monthly salary
      They eat high on the hog , never counting a calorie
      To hell with the little people beneath their feet
      Theyre gonna see to it ,and they'll be discreet
      Money always talks while the bullshit is left for us
      The day will come when your freedom is gone
      Politicians are nopthing better than cons.
      Listen to them and reap the benefit
      If you think you'll get a taste of relief your a damn nit~wit!!

    16. Terri Meredith profile image91
      Terri Meredithposted 5 years ago

      About a dozen years ago, I paid roughly $200 through my employer's plan, to cover my son.  The deductible was $250.   It provided excellent coverage.  We never had occasion to use it.  Then 9/11 happened.  My premiums shot up to $400 a month and the deductible went to $2,000, with far less covered.  It was like being financially raped.  Adding the premiums to the deductible meant that almost 20% of my yearly salary would be paid out of pocket BEFORE the insurance company would even begin to pay anything of the little they now covered.  I actually could not afford to use my insurance for anything other than an absolute life threatening situation.  Broken bone in my foot, that shifted and popped if I tried to walk?  Left untreated.  Couldn't afford the expense.

      Several years and $24,000 later, I was faced with the necessity of needing medical care.  It took me a year to get the insurance company to pay the $7,000 bill.  That doesn't include all the long distance calling expenses and the time away from my job responsibilities to deal with the greedy bastards.  Everyone seems to forget that insurance companies are part of "investment services" groups. And we're all very familiar with those crooks and their whining.

      Now you might think that my experience would emphasize a need for accepting Obamacare.  WRONG!  My daughter has four children that she has always maintained health coverage for.  When her husband's job was phased out a couple of years ago, he lost the coverage.  During the 3 month waiting period at his new job, it was determined that my grandchildren were eligible for coverage under PA's CHiPs program.  What a blooming joke!

      Yeah, the state government does a lot of advertising about this wonderful program that sees to the health of all children.  What they don't tell anyone is that there are virtually no doctors who accept it.  There was one state sponsored clinic in the middle of a ghetto war zone that accepted it.  My grandchildren would be risking their lives to go there all in the interests of a yearly checkup.  No thanks.  It wasn't worth it.

      The state politicians all pat themselves on the back about how great and wonderful they were to endorse the program.  Then they turn around every year, with their hands held out for more taxes to be collected in the interest of this giant mess.  They steal more money from the taxpayers without spending any of it on the program.  Very few who are "covered" ever get to see a doctor.  Those who do, wait months to get an appointment because there just aren't enough doctors willing to accept the plan.

      I see the same thing happening with Obamacare.  It always looks good on paper, but the morons sitting on the hill are consistent in their tendencies to forget about the practical applications.  It will just be another method for extracting more money without any real benefits.  If I'm going to be forced to wait a year to get an appointment, then I guess I can just skip it altogether.  I don't need the aggravation.

      Insurance coverage isn't all that ails the health care system.  There's a lot of double dipping going on, all around, and most of the robbery comes from the bill coding.  Unless you understand the coding system, you are likely to get screwed no matter what.

      1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo!

    17. JBBlack profile image60
      JBBlackposted 5 years ago

      There are some truly disgusting racist comments in this thread.  That 'taco night' comment was the worst.  The count 50 million americans likely doesn't count the illegal immigrants, so more like 85 million americans lack health care. 

      It's quite telling that so-called conservatives compain about about death panels in one breath and chant "let them die" in another.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Am I reading you correctly?  You mean there are 35 million illegal immigrants without healthcare?  Illegal immigrants are not Americans.

        1. psycheskinner profile image80
          psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          And therefore let them die in the gutter? Nice.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I can logically agree with where your heart is.  The problem is my bank account simply will not allow me to draw any more blood.  In a free society, we would help all those we could.  But in a society ruled by law, I simply resent having to obey laws which others do not, and having to stand by and pay through the nose while others reap what I've sown.  You want to pay for every illegal person that comes into this country?  Go ahead.  But don't impose that on me.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              +1

              Let those that wish to support the illegal aliens do so, but don't ask me to contribute.

            2. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ++++1!

              I agree, CPC. I have no problem with someone wanting to come to America. As a person of Scotch-Irish heritage, obviously my family migrated here, some before there were immigration laws, others legally after. The only thing I ask, nay, demand, is that anyone migrating here do so LEGALLY, learn English, and, for the love of God and everything that's good and holy, learn how to drive with at least some level of common sense.

              I also don't think it's right that Americans should have to support their being here. I have enough to take care of without having to pay for someone elses problems with my tax dollar or higher premiums.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Slaint.  (Did I spell it right?)

            3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
              Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "In a free society, we would help all those we could."

              This is completely inaccurate.

              I know you were going for "hey, let's all sound nice", but this is NOT what a free society means.

              Free = I get to choose.

              "We would all help those we could" = A choice that Saints who have enough expendable income make.

              Not everyone is a rich saint.

              Translation: In a free society, don't expect everyone to volunteer to spend money to help one another. And if your government makes "charity" a law, then you no longer live in a free society.

              ---- Reading your post, I"m sure you agree with me. I just wanted to catch the small mistake and highlight the fallacy therein. Champions of liberty never rest while government is afoot.

              1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Hear! Hear!  You have clarified the point like drawn butter.  And, yes, reading between my lines, I did mean those who are inclined to help, would help all they could.  For me, it's just giving old coats to the homeless in winter and maybe a few bucks a year to Mercy Ministries.  Don't get me wrong.  It's not always about my money.  I'm including kicking some physical ass in defense of a child if I have to.

                1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
                  Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank god - i thought you would just read the first 3 lines and then respond angrily.

                  Bravo to reading skills!

                  1. couturepopcafe profile image60
                    couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey, you probably don't remember this, but I'm the one who said 'Evan for President' in another post.  Probably last year.

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Do you take responsibility for the ones in Nicaragua, too?  How about all those in Nigeria and the Congo?  All dead in the gutter because the US failed in their obligation to build hospitals every 50 miles, staff them and provide free health care to the world.

            Or is it only those that are gutsy and criminal enough to invade our country and violate our laws that deserve our care?

            It is possible, just possible mind you, that the US cannot be bled indefinitely to support the world without bleeding to death itself.  Sentiment and desire won't help when we die ourselves.

            1. the bunco squad profile image61
              the bunco squadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              There is no real problem with Obamacare. It is just a rallying cry for the Right. The fact that Mitt and his boys helped craft it and then say they would repeal it testifies to this fact.

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                There is no real problem with Obamacare.

                I would say being declared at least in part as unconstitutional is a real problem. None of it will be a problem soon enough. Once Obama is sent back to being a two bit Chicago thug wannabe, the bad law will be repealed and we'll move on with our lives.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                The problem is with our inefficient, outrageously costly health care system which Obamacare won't solve although it may help. Medicare is unsustainable unless health care costs are fixed. The GOP proposals don't solve the cost problems; they just shift future cost increases to the people who are eligible for Medicare. There is no simple solution to controlling health care costs.

              3. couturepopcafe profile image60
                couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Dearest Bunco - That's a lot of bull.  For me the problem is that I'm being forced to buy it

    18. yellowstone8750 profile image59
      yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago

      The Constituion needs to come into the 21st century!

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's just fine the way it is. Perhaps those that don't like the country or the Constitution should "love it or leave it."

        1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
          yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You can like a country but still think it can be tweaked. Your comment is trite and rude.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            They may be trite and/or rude in your opinion but they were meant with full sincerity. If someone, like the president, wants to work outside the Constitution, perhaps it's time to "leave it."

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I love the Constitution, but our government doesn't obey it.

          DRAMA!!!

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            True, Evan, Very true.

      2. uncorrectedvision profile image61
        uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Have you read it?  It isn't locked into an era.  There are legitimate means of refining and expanding it.  If you really think that it needs revision than work to convince a sufficient number of your fellow citizens that it needs said revision and do it by legitimate democratic means rather than by dictate and edict.

        The Constitution is brilliant and beautiful.  Its mechanisms have been refined by Amendment many times.  If bringing the Constitution into the 21st century means doing as one pleases regarding the Charter of the Nation, the Law of the Land then why even be a citizen or a country.  Perhaps having an emperor would be more to your liking.  No messy democracy or Constitutional limitations and Rights involved in dictatorships and absolute monarchies.

        Is this the real difference between liberal and conservative - the difference between subject and citizen?

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I love the following two passages:

          "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

          "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


          ... if only people would sit down and read these small parts of the Constitution, this whole argument would disappear.

          (Psst, the two small passages are called "the 9th and 10th amendments" and were considered "the cornerstones of the constitution" by the founders)

    19. barryrutherford profile image34
      barryrutherfordposted 5 years ago

      All Americans should be covered by Health Insurance that way people can get treatment when it is needed.  Having 50 million or whatever uninsured distorted the accountability of the whole health system  which can never properly function at its potential.  Neither can American Society,

    20. megs78 profile image61
      megs78posted 5 years ago

      the answer is universal healthcare.  its never a problem-free answer, but at least EVERYONE pays into it and EVERYONE IS COVERED.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Very true. Medicare could be extended to everyone gradually over several years, starting with the most vulnerable--children, the unemployed and so forth. The insurance companies add no value to health care and are responsible for much of the inefficiency and skyrocketing costs. US health care costs are the highest in the world, but the results are not among the best compared to other advanced countries.

      2. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        ". . . . at least EVERYONE pays into it . . . ."

        You're joking right? Or is that sarcasm?

        Not everybody pays taxes and not everybody will be paying into this either. And don't throw out there's a mandate that you have to buy insurance. It's already been declared unconstitutional.

        1. megs78 profile image61
          megs78posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          NOT JOKING!  and this may come as a shock to you, but Canadians don't mind paying for those who cannot.  It is a way of life, a state of mind.  We care for our citizens and we will pay for those who can't.  Its an easy philosophy because you just never know when you may fall into the category of 'one who cannot.'  Take care of eachother.  I just can't believe that this hasn't caught on yet...

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            A lot of people have become brainwashed here. Remember the health insurance industry is very powerful and has very deep pockets: they spend an average of $1 million a day on lobbying. sad

          2. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Megs, most Americans, especially this one, expects those who can to get off their butts and take care of themselves. I don't have a problem helping those who can't help themselves with a hand UP, not a hand OUT.

            Canadians may not abuse the system. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of liberals here in America that are lazy, selfish, self-centered, and simply unwilling to work. To these people, I say get the hell out and stay out.

            1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
              Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              ..But it is Americans who let them in wink

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Let who in?

                1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                  Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Unfortunately, we have a bunch of liberals here in America that are lazy, selfish, self-centered, and simply unwilling to work. To these people, I say get the hell out and stay out." They're not all liberals and I don't believe policial sides have anything to do with it. I know lots of hard core Republican conservatives, like my POS ex-inlaws and my drunken sister and her loser boyfriend, for example, who fit that discription perfectly.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It sounds as though we may have had the same in-laws. Most of my ex-in-laws are outlaws and the only good ones have passed. I'm sorry to hear your sister has a problem. Perhaps the loser boyfriend is the cause for it.

                    You're right. Not all the losers are on the left. I've seen a few pictures of some people at Tea Party events that were over the top and have no place anywhere.

                    1. Paul Wingert profile image80
                      Paul Wingertposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Politically I consider myself a moderate. As for my train wreck sister, we're not close and she's adopted and hung around losers all her life. It doesn't matter what your political view is, if you hang around losers, guess what?

                      It's no secret that this country has a problem with health care. Gone are the days when you paid your local doctor with a couple of chickens and a homemade pie. The US is a capitalist/socialist country and roughly 50% of one's hospital bill is paying for someone else who couldn't afford to pay and by law, a hospital can't turn away a patient because they are unable to pay. 75% of the hospital bills are paid by the government anyway - Medicare. So a form of universal healthcare does exist in this country. As far as this half-ass health care reform bill passed last year, AKA Obamacare, I'm still shaking my head. The only place where 100% universal healthcare exists in this country is in our military. As far as the rest of us, would a universal healthcare plan for US citizens work with some sort of co-pay be a start of a solution?

                2. Eaglekiwi profile image75
                  Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The ones you are now telling to get out wink

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    The ones I'm telling to get out were already here. They're the liberals who want to change this country into some socialist utopia. To me, they have one of two choices - work within the Constitution, realizing it's not a "living, breathing document" or get the hell out. There's plenty of countries like Cuba or Venezuela that would love to have them.

        2. yellowstone8750 profile image59
          yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Your picture fits.

          1. Eaglekiwi profile image75
            Eaglekiwiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            @ Longhunter

            As unemployment rises,less taxes to divvy out wink

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              And if they keep taking more and more out of peoples pocket, they're soon going to say, "What's the use of working?" Of course, that's what the socialist in the White House wants.

          2. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My picture is a portrait I did of my son in his Longhunter outfit. What problem might you have with it?

            Please explain, Yellar.

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I see Ole Yellar doesn't want to explain his comment about my picture. That explains a lot, Ole Yellar. A whole lot.

      3. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        UHC is nonsense

        1) it's unconstitutional:
        "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

        2)Why should I pay for the HC of football players who get concussions on a daily basis despite their making Billions of dollars, yet I haven't been to a doctor in 4 years?

    21. Doc Snow profile image96
      Doc Snowposted 5 years ago

      It's not OK.  Some may choose to spin it, but this is appalling.

      Even more appalling is that those horrible socialists elsewhere spend less than we do, and cover everybody.  Our insurance companies say that they are suffering terrible tragedies all the time as a result--but if so, they must be really foolish in places like Canada and Britain, because their plans continue to enjoy high degrees of public support.

      1. megs78 profile image61
        megs78posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, we are very foolish up here in Canada.  We live in igloos too, if you hadn't heard smile  I imagine you would be hard pressed to find a Canadian who doesn't in some way, appreciate what he or she has in our healthcare system.

        1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
          yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I live in New Mexico but used to live in Toronto. I should hve stayed.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Delta is ready when you are.

      2. CMHypno profile image89
        CMHypnoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Much as people over here in Britain complain about their doctors and the NHS, most people totally support the work they do.  The current government is coming under heavy fire for proposed changes, and it would be a very brave government that tried to dismantle it.

        Most of us are happy to pay the taxes necessary to keep it going and, although I am lucky in that I haven't been to a doctor in years, I am more than happy to keep contributing so that others get the medical care they need and also that I have the assurance that if I am ill I will be treated.  The idea that someone can't go to the doctor because they can't afford it is so sad.

    22. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 5 years ago

      HATE HURTS YOU!!!

    23. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

      http://www.sherffius.com/toons/2011/SherfJ20111025.jpg?1

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hmmm, I'll take one of the "Vote 9-9-9" buttons because I like Cain. I would also like one that reads "Vote Down NEA" and another one that reads "ANYONE BUT OBAMA."

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        If our court systems would properly enforce property rights, then the EPA wouldn't be necessary.

        "CO2 levels are leading to depleted water levels in the great lakes" SHOULD mean that energy companies have to pay buckets of money to restore that water.

        Unfortunately our courts simply say "deal with it".

        The government refuses to enforce property rights, then claims that the EPA is necessary. This is untrue; it's a waste of money; and it's unconstitutional.

    24. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

      http://cdn.svcs.c2.uclick.com/c2/37232330e312012e2fb000163e41dd5b

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
        Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We're not leaving Iraq. Deal with it

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfCZblJgts

    25. MikeNV profile image75
      MikeNVposted 5 years ago

      Here is how.

      Obamacare does NOTHING to cover Americans.  All it does is mandate people buy insurance.

      So tell me how does a person who can not pay their rent or feed their family find the money to buy the insurance?  Answer:  They don't.

      How does Obamacare solve that?  They fine people who do not buy it.

      So now instead of having 50 million uninsured, we have 50 million uninsured and fined.

      The average cost of Health Insurance for a family of four is in excess of $12,000 a year.  Obamacare does nothing to lower this cost.

      1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps.

      So now instead of having 50 million uninsured, we have 50 million uninsured and fined.

      Obamacare also cuts payments to Doctors who treat patients on Medicare.  So fewer Doctors will take medicare and more patients will spend all day waiting in Doctors offices hoping they can see one of the few still willing to take it.

      Good job.

      1. thebigbagblog profile image61
        thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's true there is a tax penalty (fine) for not getting healthcare insurance under the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

        As for those who can't afford insurance, there are exemptions for those who can''t even afford the minimum requirement under the mandate. There are also exemptions for those who refuse to get healthcare on the grounds of religious belief.

        Pushing doctors away from Medicare because of cuts to payments? Kinda....That would happen because the bill (at least I can't find it) DOES NOT have the usual Medicare "doctor fixes" that bring payments closer to the private market. I imagine that this will be adjusted going forward since congress usually votes in favor of the "doctor fixes". But, because this is a recurring issue with Medicare, this is definitely a problem with or without the bill. I still have no idea why it wouldn't be included! its a cost we are absorbing anyway!!

        For me? I just figured by the new millennium, with all of our achievements in this country...having obtainable healthcare for everyone wouldn't be a goal we would be failing miserably to achieve. We can put people in space, split atoms, live in a wireless age, but we can't do this??? SMH.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "We can put people in space, split atoms, live in a wireless age..." but we can't figure out that the way to health is to eat food, not the chemicals that come out of boxes on the shelf.

    26. Evan G Rogers profile image84
      Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago

      The question is "why is it ok that 50 million Americans are uninsured"

      and the answer is "because they have better ways to spend their money".

      Sound heartless? Well, don't get mad at me: I'm sure many people WANT health care (I know I do! A baby costs a year's salary anymore! It used to be that the doctor came to your house and wrapped it in newspaper.) but the fact is that federal health care programs have shot up the costs of medical care to the point where people can't afford it.

      Wake up: All of these "free lunches for the needy" simply make a) people want to become the needy, and b) the people who can't make the dive to poverty, or the jump to wealthy, have to pay MUCH MUCH MUCH more.

      Yeah, it sounds nice: but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the problem is that they don't understand it or - in the case of certain Right leaning people - are too opposed to government programs period that they don't care what good it will do.

        You might want to read http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html which includes

        "The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll"

        Which means that all it would take to fix that for Medicare folks is a very small increase.  How much more would it take to put EVERYBODY under Medicare?

        "Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, are both projected to remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs."

        So THAT insurance works fine - why not offer it to everyone?  Medicare has a much lower administrative overhead than insurance companies and of course does not make profits - so it would cost less than private insurance - but you hate that, of course - even though it woud save us all money!

        "Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are about 25 percent lower because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Affordable Care Act" or ACA). "

        Good news!  Oh - but people like you want to kill that program..  brilliant.

        1. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "It would just cost a little more"

          Yeah, Government keeps pitching that line OVER AND OVER.

          When was the last time the government said "Oh, hey, we didn't spend as much as we thought - here's your money back"

      2. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        There is no doubt that there is some fraud in welfare programs.  It's small, but it's always something that should be rooted out and punished when possible.

        In spite of what people like you want to believe, most welfare recipients ARE truly needy and they get damn little from us - barely enough to survive for most. 

        I am not going to throw all those people to the wolves because of a small amount of fraud.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The Republicans in the Michigan legislature are proposing 85 bills designed to throw these people to the wolves.

          http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/10/28-2

        2. Clever Katie profile image59
          Clever Katieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Pcunix: When you mention that the amount of fraud is small, can I assume that you are referring to regular working people and not our illustrious Congress in Washington?

          On a more serious note, my neighbors across the street are on food stamps. If it wasn't for the food stamps, their toddler daughter would not have milk or decent food to eat. The father lost his job and has been out of work for 3 months. We give them fresh fruit and other neighbors donate diapers and cash. Some people may take advantage of the system, but I am seeing first-hand how it is a good safety net.

        3. yellowstone8750 profile image59
          yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          well put

        4. 0
          Wilfionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Exactly, it is often those with the most wealth who are the first to condemn those who through no fault of their own need to accept welfare.  Whilst those same wealthy people, complain that they might be expected to pay an extra 3% in tax, which they would not even notice.  The banks caused the economic disaster, and people have lost their jobs and homes as a result.  Not that this matters to the banks, because they own their homes anyway.  And so, the gap between the rich and the poor continues to get wider.

        5. Evan G Rogers profile image84
          Evan G Rogersposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          When i was student teaching in an inner city school, many - MANY  - of the students' parents were collecting food stamps and welfare while engaging in illegal activity to make the real money.

          Sentences like "oh, my mom is selling food stamps" were said like "oh, my dad works at UDF".

          "Don't do drugs", I said to one student, probably 16 or 17.

          His reply? "Oh, of course not. Selling arms is the way to make real money".

      3. thebigbagblog profile image61
        thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Actually there were two questions MightyMom asked. Neither of which were "why is it ok that 50 million Americans are uninsured"

        The first question was "50 million Americans uninsured AND THAT'S OK BECAUSE?"

        The second question was "I'm hoping someone here can explain to me how this is better than Obamacare?"

        Honestly, I didn't answer the first question. Mainly because I didn't think it was a serious one. Clearly, having nothing is not better than having something.

        1. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks, thebigbagblog.
          I'm still waiting for answers to parts A and B and will probably be eligible or SS and Medicare* or dead and cremated before I get them!

          *unless these unconstitutional programs are dismantled and privatized in the meantime.

          1. thebigbagblog profile image61
            thebigbagblogposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            lol

    27. Wizard Of Whimsy profile image60
      Wizard Of Whimsyposted 5 years ago

      "We sold ourselves a pipe dream that everyone could get rich and no one would get hurt — a pipe dream that exploded like a pipe bomb when the already-rich grabbed for all the gold; when they used their fortunes to influence government and gain favors and protection; when everyone else was left to scrounge around their ankles in hopes that a few coins would fall."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/opini … .html?_r=1

      1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I wish I had written that.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image60
          couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Seriously, I was thinking the same thing.

          Many people around the world may tend to think Americans are smart, saavy, maybe even sophisticated - partly because thanks to media, the world will know far more about the U.S. than we will ever know about them.  The truth is, the people of the U.S. are just as victimized by their government as anyone else, physical abuse excepted.

          Pipe dream?  You bet.  The average person trusts the gov. too much.

    28. the bunco squad profile image61
      the bunco squadposted 5 years ago

      Me Too.

    29. Harlan Colt profile image86
      Harlan Coltposted 5 years ago

      Wasn't America stronger when we lived under the ethic of provide for yourself and or your family? I'll admit this whole thing is arguable with good points from pro and con sides.  I know many people work and still cannot or do not have insurance. This includes me, and honestly, I need to see a doctor with some health issues and I can't.

      When they can find a solution that is fair and equitable for all concerned without robbing someone else to pay for it, then I'll be more supportive. I don't believe in taking money away from one group to give to another, and if congress is involved, you know someone somewhere is going to make a ton of money off it.

      As it is - its just more government control over your life. No thanks.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well said, Harlan.

    30. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago

      Pcunix,

      Yeah, I use to think about the greater needs of society until I saw a government letting in millions of illegals and giving them all the benefits of Americans that they didn't have to pay for but we did. I don't call that discrimination or hate but rather wanting my government to enforce the laws they enact the same way they expect me to abide by all of them.

      I use to think about the greater needs of society until I opened my eyes and saw people abusing the system and getting my tax dollar so they could sit on their no-good, lazy asses and not work but do all the drugs they could find or buy steak at the store on food stamps while my family is having sandwich and chips. And don't even get me started on the welfare "girls" dropping out baby after baby because they don't know how to keep their knees together long enough to utter the word, "no" but can get up off their backs long enough to collect those welfare checks.

      As for abuse, the only abuse I see is a bunch of welfare scum abusing the system my tax dollars, money I worked for and can't afford to pay, goes to fund so save your sermons on discrimination, hate, and abuse.

      My "give a damn" broke a long time ago.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image60
        couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, I worked as a certified licensed bartender in a Mexican restaurant in Tennessee.  I was the only woman and the only American except for the 2 American men who owned the restaurant and paid to have illegals brought in through an underground network.

        One of the cooks said to me it was difficult for him to get anywhere in this country and that Americans had it easy and everyone got around $2000. back on their tax returns every year.  That's what we're up against.  Turns out he was getting paid $500 wkly cash.  I took in about $800 wkly before taxes.  Generally amounted to about the same thing.  What's my point?  Don't know, I'm just p.o.'d

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You have a right to be P.O.'d and the two guys who owned the place need to be fined big time for each illegal, preferably in jail, fined, and shut down.

    31. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 5 years ago

      YES!! Some people have lost their ability to think rationally, and they indiscriminately blame other minorities for their personal failures.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And some people have had too much of the Obama Kool-Aide and think all their problems are the fault of someone else when it really can be attributed to their own damn laziness and lack of ambition. Prime example: the OWS protesters.

        1. Pcunix profile image91
          Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Have you actually been to an occupy encampment?  I have.

          This isn't about what O'Reilly and the other Faux shills tell you it is about. 

          Do you think it is good that someone with more money than you can influence laws and policy so that they get even more money and you get less?

          You no doubt think the awful government is stealing your money - the 1% are the ones who actually ARE stealing it.

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, I haven't been to one of these encampments as I have two jobs and would rather spend my off time with my family. The one in Nashville has had a difficult time getting up and running as our governor has put a midnight curfew on Legislative Plaza. I think he's lifted it which I also think was a mistake. However, if they remain civil, I say let them protest.

            If they cause damage, they should be arrested and charged.

            If they become unruly, arrest them and fine them heavily.

            If they become violent, take them down (not out) with whatever means necessary.

            For your info, Pcunix, I don't watch Fox News. I get my news from several sources then make up my own mind.

            As for the government, I think we should fire them all and send their sorry asses home. Yes, I said all. Then make the ones we do send understand they work for us, not the other way around.

            And, no, I don't take any stock in the BS that there's some shadow government of rich people ruling this country.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Who said shadow government?  No shadow government, no conspiracies, just a whole pile of individual bad actors who would just soon steal from each other if they can.

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You just described politicians, a lower life form not to be found in the world.

                Problem is while you guys are protesting bankers, business owners, and Wall Street, the politicians are loving it because the focus is off them.

                I heard one OWS protester say, "Arrest all the bankers, especially the guilty ones." WHAT?

    32. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 5 years ago

      When some people become brain wash politically, their speak and thought become compressed within a small and narrow boundaries. They parrot each others from the top to the bottom in their political sphere of influience and when talking to those unwashed Americans. They cannot speak or think out their box, and remain in the box. That's nothing new under the sun, just my observation about politics today.

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Prime examples: Liberals, Obama supporters, OWS Protesters, and Democrats.

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Anyone else Fox News has instructed you to hate? What about Pelosi, or is she off the radar now?

          1. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nope, unlike Liberals, I don't hate a soul, LL. I may disagree with someone's Ideology but I tend to pity stupid people because they haven't taken the time to full educate themselves.

            You probably hate me because I'm a Christian Conservative but you don't even know me.

            As for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, they're all cut from the same cloth - self-serving liberal politicians. Unfortunately, we have a few of them on our side as well but we're trying to weed them out. It'll happen sooner or later.

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Well, maybe unlike other conservatives, too, if you don't hate a soul. Good for you. I don't hate you; I hardly know enough about you, and posting things I disagree with or that I recognize as untrue (like that hate is the domain of liberals, to start) aren't enough for me to hate you.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                But  it is an excellent  beginning..

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  So am I assume that you hate me, Pcunix? Simply because I'm a Christian Conservative?

                  1. Pcunix profile image91
                    Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Hate is a strong word. I doubt I could put up with having you around me regularly, but if you were a neighbor, I'd smile and say "Hello" in spite of my extreme disgust at your politics,

                    You wouldn't get invited to parties, but if I saw you struggling with something heavy or trying to do something that really needs at least three hands, I'd step over and help.  Is that hate?

                    1. 0
                      Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      No, it's not hate but it is the way I'd deal with you as well.

                      I have neighbors like you. I wave and say, "Hello." But shook my head in disgust when I over heard the guy across the street say during a phone call, "Why can't you do it? We have a black man in the White House so get it done!"

                      As for the heavy lifting, I'd help you as well just like I helped the same idiot across the street get a sofa out of his house so his wife wouldn't kill him and would stop screaming at him. Probably helped avoid gun play.

                      As for the parties, not a problem as I don't drink or do drugs but I have been known to call the police a time or two.

                      Is that hate?

                      My political views aren't all that extreme, Pcunix. Would it surprise you to know that, while I don't agree with abortion, I don't think I have a right to tell a woman what to do with the baby unless it's mine? I would hope that she would bring it to full term and put it up for adoption but that's up to her as long as it's not mine.

                      Would it surprise you to know that I believe a person's religion or lack thereof is their private choice? Now, if that person wanted to know more and/or accept Christ as their savior, I would do all I could to help them but I'm not going to say a word if they don't. I have no need or desire to 'thump' my Bible at anyone.

                      Would it surprise you to know that I think most gays are born that way? How they live their lives is their business, none of mine. This view has put me at odds with some in my family, my pastor, and even my wife to a certain extent.

                      You like to say my views are extreme right but you might find we agree on a few things even if it isn't on who should be president.

              2. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Great!!! We've established neither one of us hates the other. Now we can all sing Cumbaya together.

                I don't hate anyone, LL, including Obama, Pelosi, or Reid. I just think they're arrogant jerks and really don't give a damn about the country or the people they were elected to SERVE. We have some of those on our side as well. Difference is we're trying to get rid of ours.

                To be honest, to me the OWS protesters lack a sense of direction or organization other than they're all sleeping in the same park and from time to time walk in their own little groups in the same direction and chant the same as everyone else in their group.

                When it comes to the Tea Party, yes, my Conservative values tend to coincide more with their message. They do their event/protest then go home. Their way of doing things certainly seems to have gotten a better response than the OWS protests. Just MHO.

                1. livelonger profile image90
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, the Tea Party was more favorably received...by conservatives. Their time had passed, since the GOP brand had been rehabilitated in conservatives' eyes.

                  OWS has growing popular appeal. At least those protesting are arguing in their own interests.

                  A movement of poor people primarily dependent on government largesse, arguing for lower taxes on billionaires and the ending of government was never going to really go anywhere as a popular movement.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I guess we'll see after the 2012 elections and I'm sure you have no doubt how I'm hoping that turns out. It can't get here soon enough.

                    1. Pcunix profile image91
                      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      You'll be unhappy.. :-)

                    2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Yes, I know you're looking forward to Obama being out, LH!
                      MM

                    3. livelonger profile image90
                      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Well, naturally I know how you'd like it to turn out. Fortunately, a majority of Americans look at the GOP candidates with either amusement or horror, so I suspect you'll be talking up 2016 just days after the election next year. smile

                    4. yellowstone8750 profile image59
                      yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Who would you currently vote for? I am asking Longhunter.

          2. 0
            Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, by the way, I don't watch Fox News because I'm not real fond of O'Rielly or Hannity.

            1. Pcunix profile image91
              Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, none of you ever do.  It's amazing, really: you all know the latest Fox talking points, but none of you ever watch it.. It's a miracle!

              1. livelonger profile image90
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                They tend to get repeated verbatim on sites like FreeRepublic. Nary a single original thought on any of them; more like an entire online ecosystem of propaganda.

              2. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And you guys sound like you have one great big conference call about what to write and talk about. Then you drink the Kool-Aide after a toast to The Chosen One and skip off to spew your hatred of anyone who disagrees with you like a bunch of Liberal screaming psychos.

                I don't have time to watch Fox news. I have two jobs and a 3 YO son. If the TV is on, we sure as hell aren't watching Fox News.

          3. couturepopcafe profile image60
            couturepopcafeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hate's a pretty strong word.  But since you've brought up Pelosi, I dislike her very much because she's arrogant and condescending, IMO.

            1. livelonger profile image90
              livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't forget the fact that she has wrinkles and uses Botox. lol

              1. 0
                Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                You've got to admit Pelosi would make a great poster child for birth control.

                1. livelonger profile image90
                  livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  It's a little sad that conservatives still primarily judge women by their looks. I knew Meg Whitman and Sharon Angle didn't have a chance.

                  1. 0
                    Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I can assure you this Conservative also judges her on her arrogance, lies, and lack of leadership ability. The fact that she's ugly as hell is just something to pick on her about.

                    Hell, they can't all look like Sarah Palin.

                    1. Pcunix profile image91
                      Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      What lies would those be?

                    2. livelonger profile image90
                      livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                      Thanks for proving my point.

    33. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 5 years ago

      The Teaparty members of the 2008 election comes to mind when I think of the politically brainwashed as a prime example those who parroted the Republican leadership. The Republican leadership don't need the Teaparty out of the political season, they say what they are doing is what the people sent them to do. The Occupy Movement Nationwide has many X-Teaparty members who disagree with the Republican leadership, but can't take their back. They hope they can vote their own interest in 2012, rather than the interest of wall street.

    34. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago

      Pcunix,

      'Filthy rich.' I like that.

      If I were filthy rich, why would I be working two jobs as well as working at home to make money doing freelance graphics and writing? Why would my wife be selling Avon while taking care of our 3 YO son? No, I'm not filthy rich. No where near.

      Romney is to left (Romneycare). Perry is too 'out there.' Cain is plain spoken and honest even if he does make a verbal misstep from time to time. Newt has too much baggage. The others I'm not even looking at. Of the 'field', Cain's the one I like the best.

      Again, anybody other than Obama.

      1. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Then why on earth would you think Cain is a good choice?

        Even the other fools up there know that his 9-9-9 plan is great for the rich and really sucky for the rest of us.   So  you WANT to pay more taxes than you do now?

      2. Pcunix profile image91
        Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And you think that your situation is good?

        Back when we didn't have "coddle the rich" tax rates, I never had two jobs and my wife never worked until the kids went to school. Even them, it was only part time.

        I wasn't unusual.  Nobody I knew worked two jobs and we were all able to buy cars and houses and have vacations.  Nobody had trouble finding a job and if you had a real skill, you did very well.

        That's what the Republicans stole from you: a decent life. 

        I'm 64 now and have been sliding into retirement since I was 55.  We do have to struggle a little now because my wife's illness made it impossible for her to work, but the kids are grown and gone, we downsized our home, so we can live pretty well just the same.

        I feel really sad for today's working parents.  You really don't understand how bad off you are and who is responsible for it.

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I did a whole lot better before Obama came into office. I have a good job but was trying to find a better job. When he came into office, everything dried up. No prospects at all. Even freelance graphics jobs were few and far between. Everybody started hoarding their money. I did manage to find a landscaping job I do on Saturdays and my wife just started selling Avon.

          I work two jobs because my wife can't work. She's a type 1 diabetic and had a heart attack a couple of years ago at the ripe old age of 24. Besides, anything she would make right now would go to daycare for our 3 year old son. I don't like daycares anyway. After almost loosing my oldest son from something he caught at one, I'll do whatever it takes to keep the youngest one out of a daycare. To me, they're just a peachery dish full of germs waiting to happen.

          Add in a kid in college and any thought of retirement is gone.

          Again, I did better before Obama came into office and, yes, I'm looking forward to when we get him out of office. I don't think he's good for this country. I'm not 100% happy with anyone on the Republican side either but I'll vote for whoever it is just to get Obama out of office.

          Last but certainly not least, I'm sorry to read of your wife's illness. I know from experience it's not easy caring for someone who's sick.

          1. Pcunix profile image91
            Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Believe me, I understand.  I'm not jumping up and down about Obama either.

            But Republicans are NOT the answer.  These are the people that will keep you working two jobs all of your miserable life.

            Obama won't fix that - he's too weak.  But he won't make it worse, and every one of those GOP choices will.

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, Pcunix.

              Obama came in as The Chosen One but he's done nothing but make the Dems look really bad. He also had a lot of help from other incompetents like Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, and Biden.

              The only hope you people have is Hillary. Hell, even I would vote for her before Obama.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yeah, I'd honestly prefer Hillary myself.. maybe 2016.

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Won't she be too old in 2016? I'm not making a joke. I honestly don't know how old she is but I know Reagan was on up there when he became president.

    35. jdmeth profile image60
      jdmethposted 5 years ago

      The government is mandated by the constitution to promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. You can't defend the nation with sick solders and your general welfare isn't being provided for if your medical needs are not being meet. All medical services then fall under the Department of Defense. All doctors, nurses and other medical personnel are government employees. Al medical facilities are government buildings. All training is at government schools. All drugs are developed at government labs with all patents owned by the U.S. government. With the profit take out medical care cost would drop by 50%. Military doctors are immune from prosecution so there are no malpractice insurance cost or lawyer fees to pay.

      Instead of business providing health insurance the medicare tax would be adjusted up to provide the needed revenue. Military spending would triple and we would have socialized medicine. The Republicans love military spending and the Democrats want socialized medicine and higher taxes, talk about bi-partisan support!

      1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure this will get  response from Longhunter. Read his profile.

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry to disappoint you, Ole Yellar. I'm sure this isn't going to be the response you were looking for.

          I would like to know what this odd fixation is you have with my picture and profile. Believe me, yours isn't any better. It's not very creative. More boastful than anything. I guess you think you have a lot to be proud of.

          Nice picture of your mom though.

          I realize you've been on here about a month and I like the free speech the First amendment affords us all. However, this odd fixation you have with my picture mentioned earlier and my profile now has become a little worrying and is probably something the HP gods would frown upon. Shall we ask and see?

          I like having debates even with small-minded people so I would really dislike seeing you banned after such a short time with us. So, what say you, Ole Yellar? Would you care to back off and debate the issues if you're able or shall we both continue with the backhanded insults?

          Your turn, Ole Yellar.

          1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
            yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I apologize.

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks, Yellowstone. And I apologize as well. Now, lets move on.

              1. Pcunix profile image91
                Pcunixposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And I will apologize for certain thoughts that I did not actually type in..  :-)

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Geeee, thanks, Pcunix!!!!! I'll do the same.

    36. 0
      Longhunterposted 5 years ago

      Pcunix wrote: Yes, you can see that with  Longhunter above.   Good old Georgie messed up everything and Obama gets the blame.

      I have often said to my liberal friends that part of me wishes we had elected John-boy instead.  If he had stepped off the swearing-in stage to the same cesspool Obama walked into, we might have killed GOP influence for at least a decade or two.


      There's been numerous times I've called Bush on the carpet for his mistakes - not closing the borders, going into Iraq, etc. So why the attack on me? All I want is for the Left to acknowledge that not all the stuff that happened during the Bush Administration was his doing alone - ie, Frank's and Dodd's involvement in the housing screw up. Yes, Bush screwed up but not ALL the blame rests squarely on his shoulders. He wasn't king and had to deal with Congress, a Dem-lead Congress his last two years, I believe.

      Is all that's going on now Obama's fault? No, but he's increased spending, more than three fold, one of the very things liberals were screaming at Bush about.

      As for the cesspool, there's a deep end at both ends of that pool so lets not go there.

      Perhaps you're afraid Obama's time in office will screw the Dems up for the next decade or two. It's a shame because we need the give and take of a two-party system, just maybe not these two parties.

    37. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      They really need to issue a "snort alert" when they send over emails that a thread you are following has a new post.
      Calling someone Ole Yeller just cracks me up (to the point of coffee spewing) on a couple of levels.
      LH, gotta hand that to you. +1.
      Yellowstone, + points to you,also for apologizing. In a single word.
      That's big.

      Back to the topic (or wherever you gentlemen left off).
      Funny how Hillary and McCain look so much better to people now after 3 years of sand throwing, tantrums and I don't even know how to label Obama's overcautious leadership style (help!).

      I said in 2008 and will say again now, a Hillary/McCain ticket would have (I believe) been a great bipartisan coup. Imagine what they'd have done to stave off the horrible economy we've been living since Bush exited.
      We likely would have health care bill that was written correctly, marketed more effectively, and that actually works.
      *sigh*
      And the GOP in Congress would have been contained.


      2012: I think McCain's past his prime and ready to retire.
      But, I think Mrs. Clinton is being cagey again. (Trust me, I heard out verbatim out of her own lips in 2004 she wasn't going to run in 2008. Ha ha ha ha.).

      So she's said she's stepping down from SOS job. She's said she won't be running for POTUS in "2016." And I've read also that Clinton as VEEP on Obama's 2012 ticket "ain't gonna happen." (not sure if that's on his side or hers or just another fake rumor).
      Signs point to..... A challenge in 2012.

      BTW she is 64. Plenty of life left in the woman!
      Besides, isn't 60 the new 50? Or 40 or whatever???

      1. 0
        Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, thanks to Yellowstone for the apology and I did the same above.

        McCain was past prime in the 2008 Election. Just MHO. I voted for him because I liked Palin at the time. That's changed. And I didn't like Obama's ideology. That hasn't changed.

        If Hillary were to run this time, she would probably win. She would pull in women, minorities, and independents. Maybe even a few Republicans that didn't like the GOP nominee.

        As for Hillary's age, she's still younger than Reagan was while in office. I do like your math. Does that mean when I hit 50 in January I'll really be 30?

      2. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think she should run in 2016. She'd be, what, 68-69 then?

        McCain on any ticket would have been a nightmare. Remember, this is the guy who selected Sarah Palin as his running mate after having coffee with her a few times.

        If she is going to be groomed for a presidential run, I wonder what role she'd take in a second Obama presidency. She's burnished her foreign policy credentials. Maybe something more domestic?

        I also look forward to all the right-wingers who've been saying "Hillary would be so much better than Obama" eat their words when she becomes the nominee...which, of course, they would in about 3 seconds.

        1. 0
          Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ahhhh, times up!!!

          Hillary would be a better candidate for the Dems as she would probably walk away with the election. I honestly think Obama is going to have a real tough time this go round. He might win but it ain't going to be a walk in the park like last time.

          1. livelonger profile image90
            livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Hope springs eternal. smile

            Obama will clobber whatever clown the GOP ends up deciding on. It'll be 2004 all over again, except in reverse. (or 1996, if you will)

            1. 0
              Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I'm glad to see the up beat attitude but dream on, LL. It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings and my ex-wife hasn't even started warming up yet.

              1. livelonger profile image90
                livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                lol Well, we'll see. We have a year ahead of us. I'll buy you a beer if I'm wrong. (Or will alcohol be prohibited if Romney becomes prez?)

                1. 0
                  Longhunterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "Or will alcohol be prohibited if Romney becomes prez?"

                  I don't know about beer but you won't be able to get a drink with caffeine in it.

                  YEEEE HAAAAW, we'll be able to party like it's 1959.

    38. wyo barney profile image61
      wyo barneyposted 5 years ago

      In 1998 Personal Health Care Expenditures (PHCE) totaled $1.0 trillion in the USA. In 2008 that figure has risen to $2.0 trillion. Goverment funds (taxpayers) paid for 47% of the total PHCE. 1/3 of the goverment's share was paid for by Medicare. Who's on Medicaid? 35% of the us population under the age of 18. About 10% of the adults from 18 to 65 years old. These include people with disabilities, who through no fault of their own, are very limited on supporting themseves. The largest share of the goverments tab (taxpayers) is in the form of medicare. Designed mostly for the population of those 65 years and older. The number one disportionate cost for medicare is End of Life costs. That last, final 3 to 4 day visit "gramps" makes to the hospital. Another hugh contibiting factor to the rising cost is the amount of "free" health care provided by the not-for-profit hospitals, which make up 83% of all hospitals in the US. This is the amount that no one pays, goverment, industry, or user. Each hospital is forced to "write off" millions of dollars each year in uncollected fees. This money has to be made up somehow, so fees and costs are passed on to those that can pay. So who is paying for our healthcare? All of us.

      1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
        yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Your stats are accurate; however, don't you think there is a better way?

        1. wyo barney profile image61
          wyo barneyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am a firm believer in "free" enterprise. That being said, I look around me at all my friends, nieghbors, and relatives, and see a fair share of them who have paid into the currant system of healthcare ie;  healthinsurance, for 40 or 50 years and not haveing to utilize it much, only to reach an age to retire, no refund from the insurance company, and haveing to then rely on a goverment program to provide the majority of their health cost when they need it the most in their lives. Society is already paying for the majority. Lets quit trying to kid ourselves, admit it and plan accordingly

          1. yellowstone8750 profile image59
            yellowstone8750posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Are you saying that we need to get rid of Medicare (not Medicde)?

            1. wyo barney profile image61
              wyo barneyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not at all. I am just pointing out how much of the burden of heathcare cost is already being "paid" for by the taxpayer. The problem is how or in what manner do we as an American society choose to raise the dollars required to pay the healthcare providers for services rendered. or do we insist on only providing such services to those who can pay in full only.

    39. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

      As I see your argument, wyo barney,
      Our government is already paying for more citizens' health care than the average Joe even knows about!
      Medicare covering senior citizens and Medicaid covering a big chunk more of young folks and disabled people.
      So really, why are those of us in the more-or-less healthy, not-quite-indigent middle NOT being covered?
      That's the question I've been asking.
      It seems like a logical question and you have written a brilliant answer!

      Moreover, why, pray tell, would ANYONE argue in favor of paying for years into an insurance policy that they get nothing out of?
      Or for coverage that delivers less and less while you're paying more and more in premiums?
      HOW can this be American???

      Private enterprise is wonderful.
      But not when it comes to health care. sad

      1. wyo barney profile image61
        wyo barneyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        We can always resort to the constitutional era method of healthcare. Just drain a little blood out for whatever ails you. It was good enough for George Washington, and any barbershop at the time would provide the service relativly cheap. What do we have to lose?

        1. livelonger profile image90
          livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Don't forget leeches! And dental care will be taken care of the Washington way, too - wooden teeth.

          1. uncorrectedvision profile image61
            uncorrectedvisionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Ivory and leather dentures

          2. wyo barney profile image61
            wyo barneyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Maybe we are on to something here. Total DEREGULATION and we can sell lots of Magic Home Remedys over the internet. No need for the horse and wagon traveling medicine shows of long ago. It would cut down on all those pesky end of life issues as well!

     
    working