Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/2/2009 2:15:05 PM EST
Recent exchange:


The liberal - Medicare E [for ALL]. FRENCH/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/FASCIST/NON-FATTENING/GREEN/BLUE/TALL/SHORT/LOW IQ, HIGH IQ/'DECIDER'/DARTH-VADER Health care for every human being who is in the United States, even the people who handle our food daily, and may not have correct documentation.

Another conservative - Are you saying that for the price of a ticket to the good old USA anyone in the World can come for whatever’s ailing them? That would sure simplify and economize health care for all other countries – even France.

Liberal replying to the plane ticket question - Yes. That is the way that most industrialized countries do it. We, for those in the upper-incomes, have good to very good health care. There are problems with all systems, but in other "industrialized/western" countries - you do not go bankrupt because of illnesses, and you do not die because insurance companies deny you money - to go to doctors/hospitals/etc. And when people use the "ER" as their primary doctor - boy is that expensive. And we pay for it. AND we are at a compeitive economic disadvantage VS countires who have a "national" plan, because the countries pay for much/most of the medical procedures, not individual companies - which they have in countries that have forms of socialism - as we do here.

Me - Shame 50% of Dr’s have to refuse Medicare patients because our own government is too corrupt or incompetent to pay the bills. Socialism and Collectivism fails every time it’s tried!
Liberal - Shame the United States is ranked in the mid-30s by the WHO in various categories of "health quality;" "for-profit-health" is an oxymoron. [Who was the "smartest person" of the 20th Century? Who wrote the "Pledge of Allegience?] Hint - both were Socialists


Me - The WHO lies, plain and simple. How many of the upper 30 countries have cured a disease lately? How many have developed a new drug? How many have developed a new technology? Not Cuba, Not Canada, Not England. I thank G_D every day I live here, not there.

The world depends on the innovation and success of the US system. The US system pays for 99.9% of the AIDS drugs that go to Africa. 750 Million people disagree with you Len.

England, Canada, and Australia are moving back to ‘fee for service’ Health Care.

Our country is flat out BROKE, Obama is a great street hustler, but we have zero money. We need to be less like Europe, not more. We left Europe for reason!


Liberal - Allen, I have not heard that the WHO lies before. Let's start with your first sentence. [This is not an Abbott and Costello routine.] Who said WHO lies? Do you have documentation? And if it does lie, that's one hell of of a big lie, from the 'top' in health care, to battling Slovenia.
Me - “Who said WHO lies? Do you have documentation?”

XXX, stop dreaming about utopia and start thinking about reality. I can’t get to the WHO website here, but isn’t Costa Rica, Columbia and Dominican Republic ranked above US? How could this be true? How much more likely are you to survive the flu in the US than the DR? Obviously biased ‘rankings’ will not help your argument here.

Take the 30 countries that outrank us. What are their accomplishments?

I’m sorry, but I don’t believe for a second that the US doesn’t offer some of the best health care in the World. Expansion of Medicare and eliminating the insurance industry will only make things worse. Currently 45% of Dr.’s refuse to take new Medicare patients because .gov can’t pay their bills. When I was Mexico, I broke a tooth. I had the opportunity to visit a local dentist. No novacaine, no gloves, just “this is going to sting”. No thanks XXX.



Another conservative (mocking the lib) - It’s sounding to me like we can have health care for everyone for the price of an airline ticket – not a bad deal!


Liberal - This is a perplexing problem. My view is that we would be a better/safer/stronger nation if all medical [and related] were covered as if we were one. But we also have to address: taxes, individual responsibility, fairness, morality, and down the list. I think there are more advantages, than disadvantages, to a single-payer system. No system, by definition, is going to address it perfectly, or even near perfectly. The current system works for a goodly proportion of residents of the United States, but it leaves the vast majority of us in mortal danger [from insurances], and a certain percentage of us - just get no, or poor, or late care.






I am having more and more days that I am losing my cool talking to liberals. Not long ago I could debate, keep my cool, and get a few swipes in. Now that I am realizing that, our liberty is slipping away faster than ever, I am getting angrier and angrier. Combine the mistakes of GWB with direction of the Obamabots, we are left with a giant xxxx-sandwich!
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:18:21 PM EST
You can't cure stupid.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:20:14 PM EST
You're just now losing your patience with them?

I think I did that back in 1992 or so. I'm up to rabid fucking hatred for them these days.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:22:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 2:23:28 PM EST by BuckHammer]
Originally Posted By fishy0689:
You can't cure stupid.


+1

ETA: I think libs support Socialized Medicine in hopes that the government will pay to fix their stupid.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:28:14 PM EST
I ran out of patience with liberals around 1980 or so.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:32:05 PM EST
That's an exercise in frustration. Unless you really like banging your head on the wall, I'd recommend just punching them in the nose after they open their cake holes.

Ed
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:33:27 PM EST
I ran out of patience with liberals around 1980 or so.


Ya, no kidding.

The only difference it that now I dont even want to hear there BS or see it implemented. I put up a fight whenever I see some BS politically correct action or other crap the libs do. I am getting more and more outspoken against it.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:42:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 2:43:16 PM EST by yumbeef]
Originally Posted By fishy0689:
You can't cure stupid.


you can't have an intelligent discussion with stupid folks either.
ETA: it probably sounds like "blah blah blah duur durrrr har har harrrrrrr" to both sides
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 2:45:56 PM EST
I hate the debate on health care any more. Talking to people who think a national system would be best is just infuriating.

On the other hand, the current system is so fucking jacked up it's almost inconceivable. We need TORT reform so that doctors and hospitals can bring their costs WAY down. We need to stop treating illegals who never have any intention of paying for for the millions and millions of dollars of service they're receiving, and we need some reasonable regulation of insurance companies to ensure that those who pay for coverage CANNOT be denied that coverage when something big comes along. I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing about people who get denied coverage for serious medical issues (or worse, having their policy cancelled altogether) that I could scream. If the country goes full-retard and goes to a single payer system, the insurance companies will only have themselves to blame because for the most part they are a bunch of blood sucking vampires based on their current practices. They are largely responsible for the nationalized HC movement gaining so much steam thus far....all you have to do is look at the signs of those protesting private health care to see who their beef is with.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:16:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By peallens13:

Liberal - This is a perplexing problem. My view is that we would be a better/safer/stronger nation if all medical [and related] were covered as if we were one. But we also have to address: taxes, individual responsibility, fairness, morality, and down the list. I think there are more advantages, than disadvantages, to a single-payer system. No system, by definition, is going to address it perfectly, or even near perfectly. The current system works for a goodly proportion of residents of the United States, but it leaves the vast majority of us in mortal danger [from insurances], and a certain percentage of us - just get no, or poor, or late care.



Is it just me, or does this go against their argument?

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:19:47 PM EST
You are obviously a RACIST.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:24:18 PM EST
Originally Posted By kcobean:
I hate the debate on health care any more. Talking to people who think a national system would be best is just infuriating.

On the other hand, the current system is so fucking jacked up it's almost inconceivable. We need TORT reform so that doctors and hospitals can bring their costs WAY down. We need to stop treating illegals who never have any intention of paying for for the millions and millions of dollars of service they're receiving, and we need some reasonable regulation of insurance companies to ensure that those who pay for coverage CANNOT be denied that coverage when something big comes along. I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing about people who get denied coverage for serious medical issues (or worse, having their policy cancelled altogether) that I could scream. If the country goes full-retard and goes to a single payer system, the insurance companies will only have themselves to blame because for the most part they are a bunch of blood sucking vampires based on their current practices. They are largely responsible for the nationalized HC movement gaining so much steam thus far....all you have to do is look at the signs of those protesting private health care to see who their beef is with.


I am going to have to disagree with you here, and here's why...

What passes for health insurance in this country barely resembles what insurance is supposed to be. The purpose of insurance is to provide protection against a risk, guess what? The risk of you NOT going to the doctor is non-existent, you are going to go to the doctor (some small samples exluded). Ergo, if they insure you, in the classic sense, they are going to lose their ass. If they accept a very small percentage of the expected cost and are gambling that you are not going to use it, they will lose.

Insurance companies in other markets insure against a risk. They figure that if they insure 100 drivers, they will only have to pay out X amount of damages based on the averages of car accidents. The more accidents in your area, your types of vehicle, age group etc. the more you pay in premium; the odds of them having to pay go up. How does that translate to health care? The more chance of an event the higher you would pay.

If you are a 20 something hardbody that hasn't been to a doctor in five years your premium would most likely be low. If you are a 50 something smoker who is 50 pounds overweight, your chance of a medical problem goes up and so does your premium. Why is this hard to understand? Is it a lack of understanding of what insurance is supposed to be? Or is it that we have gotten to the point that responsibility for our own well being is just too damn hard for most people?

The insurance companies are being insurance companies, I don't see anything untoward or nasty about that.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:44:03 PM EST
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSERVATIVE AND A LIBERAL
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:50:40 PM EST
Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Originally Posted By kcobean:
I hate the debate on health care any more. Talking to people who think a national system would be best is just infuriating.

On the other hand, the current system is so fucking jacked up it's almost inconceivable. We need TORT reform so that doctors and hospitals can bring their costs WAY down. We need to stop treating illegals who never have any intention of paying for for the millions and millions of dollars of service they're receiving, and we need some reasonable regulation of insurance companies to ensure that those who pay for coverage CANNOT be denied that coverage when something big comes along. I'm so sick and fucking tired of hearing about people who get denied coverage for serious medical issues (or worse, having their policy cancelled altogether) that I could scream. If the country goes full-retard and goes to a single payer system, the insurance companies will only have themselves to blame because for the most part they are a bunch of blood sucking vampires based on their current practices. They are largely responsible for the nationalized HC movement gaining so much steam thus far....all you have to do is look at the signs of those protesting private health care to see who their beef is with.


I am going to have to disagree with you here, and here's why...

What passes for health insurance in this country barely resembles what insurance is supposed to be. The purpose of insurance is to provide protection against a risk, guess what? The risk of you NOT going to the doctor is non-existent, you are going to go to the doctor (some small samples exluded). Ergo, if they insure you, in the classic sense, they are going to lose their ass. If they accept a very small percentage of the expected cost and are gambling that you are not going to use it, they will lose.

Insurance companies in other markets insure against a risk. They figure that if they insure 100 drivers, they will only have to pay out X amount of damages based on the averages of car accidents. The more accidents in your area, your types of vehicle, age group etc. the more you pay in premium; the odds of them having to pay go up. How does that translate to health care? The more chance of an event the higher you would pay.

If you are a 20 something hardbody that hasn't been to a doctor in five years your premium would most likely be low. If you are a 50 something smoker who is 50 pounds overweight, your chance of a medical problem goes up and so does your premium. Why is this hard to understand? Is it a lack of understanding of what insurance is supposed to be? Or is it that we have gotten to the point that responsibility for our own well being is just too damn hard for most people?

The insurance companies are being insurance companies, I don't see anything untoward or nasty about that.


I have zero problem with the cost of a health insurance policy going up or down based on factors that would increase or decrease your chances of needing coverage for health-related care....a person's ability to influence their rates *should* be present in the system, just as it is for auto insurance. I've never understood "flat fee" health insurance specifically because it DOESN'T take risk into account. All I'm saying is that if you sell me a policy (at whatever price), and then you deny me the coverage I've paid for and you've agreed to provide, that's a big problem and it happens every single day in this country.

In reality, if we saw some TORT reform and stopped pumping billions into illegal alien care, the policy for the 20-something hardbody should be $50/month (total, not just what he pays in after his employer kicks in their half), and the 50-something overweight smoker would be in the $300 range (or whatever, just an example, but you get my point...those are much more affordable numbers than we see today, where an "employee + 0" policy for a young, healthy employee is $300/month after the employee and the company both pay in.)

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:51:39 PM EST
Originally Posted By putiton11:
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSERVATIVE AND A LIBERAL
If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.
If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.



+1
Top Top