partsisparts Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 So you're blaming the right because the left can't ge their act together....why don't they just shove it thru? obama and the left want big govt......higher taxes, national healthcare, open borders....... When did Obama say he wanted higher taxes, and open borders??? Obama did say he was against a single payer health care system. If you are against national health care you must be against medicare. Does that mean you are not going to use medicare when you are eligible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) obama and the left want big govt......higher taxes, national healthcare, open borders....... HUH, that's funny their was an attack on New York City that killed over 3,200 people. The sitting commander, and chief cited a foreign nation as the culprit. These foreign nationals had easy access to the US via Mexico, and Canada. However even after your humble FOX news corespondent pointed this out he refused to secure the borders with the national guard! Also the TWIC card was not instituted till 2009 to secure our ports, that's 8 years after the attack. Why, is it because he valued the use of cheap Mexican labor? Why did he try to force a bill through congress to allow these illegal immigrants amnesty? Why did I have to send E-Mails to my congressman and senator informing them that if they supported it I would vote against him in the next election. Democrats support open borders are you kidding me, Bush signed enough free trade agreements that borders are nothing more then an imaginary line on a paper globe! YAAFI Napfister! Edited October 4, 2009 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Republican Senators like socialized insurance, as long as it's for rich waterfront property owners. http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heathe...socialized-heal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 When did Obama say he wanted higher taxes, and open borders??? Obama did say he was against a single payer health care system. If you are against national health care you must be against medicare. Does that mean you are not going to use medicare when you are eligible? Obama did say he was against a single payer health care system if you believe this, then tell who is in this video...it looks and sounds like the moron: obama saying he supports single payer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) if you believe this, then tell who is in this video...it looks and sounds like the moron: obama saying he supports single payer http://www.pnhp.org/publications/payingnotgetting.pdf Paying For National Health Insurance—And Not Getting It In a political culture characterized by “read my lips/over my dead body,” the threat of huge tax increases silences the debate over national health insurance. Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their taxes to finance health care are higher; or are they? In 1965 U.S. tax-financed health expenditures per capita were well below the total spending levels in most other developed nations and similar to government spending in other wealthy nations. By 1999 tax-financed health expenditures per capita in the United States exceeded total health spending per capita in every other nation except Switzerland and dwarfed government spending in any other nation. Americans now pay higher taxes per capita for financing health care than do any other nation’s citizens. The huge role of the government in financing American health care is obscured by the fact that nearly one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on their way to the patient’s bedside. What originates as taxes paid by private households ends up as recycled “private” spending in the CMS accounts. Insurance firms not only siphon off overhead and profits in the process, they also inflict huge paperwork burdens and costs on providers. Edited October 4, 2009 by nvsked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 4, 2009 Author Share Posted October 4, 2009 (edited) if you believe this, then tell who is in this video...it looks and sounds like the moron: obama saying he supports single payer I thought you didn't like name calling. What was your reply on open borders? As for A single payer system, both Hilary and Obama at some point wanted a single payer system. Now as time went on Obama knew that there would be fierce resistance from the insurance industry in going to such a system, and in outlawing the sale of health insurance would unemploy many that work in this industry. So after taking office and seeing all sides of the issue, he is and has been adapting the plan to include any good ideas he can draw from each side, and trying to reduce any negative effects. BTW your the moron, because I support a single payer system. I have talked to too many living in countries that have it for me no believe what the insurance lobby, and media spin doctors say about social medicine. Only a fool does not change his prospective once he becomes better informed on any one given subject. This is the difference between you and the so called moron. He learns and adapts his plans without straying from his three basic goals. While I can show you that you are wrong all day long, and you are not man enough to utilize what you have learned to gain a better understanding. You talk at people and never hear what they are saying, instead of talking with people so both parties gain a better understanding. Obama has made it very clear what his goals are with reforming health care, he also said that all ideas will be entertained. All you have to reply with is government take over, he's a liar, he's a failure, and a boat load of false statistics that you heard uttered out of the mouth of Bill. Edited October 4, 2009 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I thought you didn't like name calling. What was your reply on open borders? As for A single payer system, both Hilary and Obama at some point wanted a single payer system. Now as time went on Obama knew that there would be fierce resistance from the insurance industry in going to such a system, and in outlawing the sale of health insurance would unemploy many that work in this industry. So after taking office and seeing all sides of the issue, he is and has been adapting the plan to include any good ideas he can draw from each side, and trying to reduce any negative effects. BTW your the moron, because I support a single payer system. I have talked to too many living in countries that have it for me no believe what the insurance lobby, and media spin doctors say about social medicine. Only a fool does not change his prospective once he becomes better informed on any one given subject. This is the difference between you and the so called moron. He learns and adapts his plans without straying from his three basic goals. While I can show you that you are wrong all day long, and you are not man enough to utilize what you have learned to gain a better understanding. You talk at people and never hear what they are saying, instead of talking with people so both parties gain a better understanding. Obama has made it very clear what his goals are with reforming health care, he also said that all ideas will be entertained. All you have to reply with is government take over, he's a liar, he's a failure, and a boat load of false statistics that you heard uttered out of the mouth of Bill. I second that emotion!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 I second that emotion!!! [/quo I third!!!! NAP, a video from 03? You know better than that! How a bout one from 03 with W saying Bin Laden and Saddam or connected? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Here is a question I have for you guys then. After we get 47 million people insured and getting regular health care, where are we going to get the doctors to provide the services? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted October 4, 2009 Share Posted October 4, 2009 Here is a question I have for you guys then. After we get 47 million people insured and getting regular health care, where are we going to get the doctors to provide the services? Do you think they are going to get sick at the same time? I do believe the AMA is for reform. 75% of doctors are behind reform. I guess they want the additional busisness. Besides the 47 million people that are uninsured are still getting health care. Do you think none of those people ever get sick. They go to the emergency room and get treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longball Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Do you think they are going to get sick at the same time? I do believe the AMA is for reform. 75% of doctors are behind reform. I guess they want the additional busisness. Besides the 47 million people that are uninsured are still getting health care. Do you think none of those people ever get sick. They go to the emergency room and get treatment. Then why spend BILLIONS more that we don't have???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then why spend BILLIONS more that we don't have???? Because the hospitals charge insured people more to cover the uninsured's treatment. If they had insurance too, they would pay own way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) Then why spend BILLIONS more that we don't have???? okay I'll type slowly to give this info time to sink in...we are not spending additional money. The money is already in the system we are changing the way the money is used. Instead of money going to insurance companies, who provide no health care, we take the money from insurance companies (bureaucracy / waste) and use it to cover the uninsured. We then look at pharmaceutical company prices and negotiate down prices kinda like Wal-Mart does with its buying power. We stop sending uninsured into emergency rooms where us the tax people pay the tab, because they are covered, and they are treated in a doctor's office before the cold is pneumonia...etc H.R. 676 in the 111th Congress http://www.pnhp.org/ Our Mission: Single-Payer National Health Insurance Greg Silver, MD The U.S. spends twice as much as other industrialized nations on health care, $7,129 per capita. Yet our system performs poorly in comparison and still leaves 45.7 million without health coverage and millions more inadequately covered. This is because private insurance bureaucracy and paperwork consume one-third (31 percent) of every health care dollar. Streamlining payment through a single nonprofit payer would save more than $400 billion per year, enough to provide comprehensive, high-quality coverage for all Americans. Edited October 5, 2009 by nvsked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Because the hospitals charge insured people more to cover the uninsured's treatment. If they had insurance too, they would pay own way. and how exactly do they pay their own way?...47% pay NO (as in zero) taxes right now...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Then why spend BILLIONS more that we don't have???? don't ask these guys those hard questions on the weekend...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 and how exactly do they pay their own way?...47% pay NO (as in zero) taxes right now...... They will have insurance. The premiums will be lower due to the govt none profit ins. Basically a plan they can afford. Like medicare. BTW are you going to use medicare when the time comes?? If you are against socialized medicine you must be against medicare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Because the hospitals charge insured people more to cover the uninsured's treatment. If they had insurance too, they would pay own way. obama's own budget office says he's wrong: Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don’t support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut. Paying For It Obama promised that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” Thus far, that’s been a tall order. The House bill doesn’t pay for itself, adding a net $239 billion over 10 years to the federal deficit, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill is much further away from covering its costs. The CBO estimated that legislation would bring a net deficit increase of $597 billion over 10 years. The Senate bill, CBO said, only produced net savings of $48 billion (compared to current law), while the House came up with more money, saving $219 billion and bringing in $583 billion in federal revenue over that 2010-2019 period. As the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, said in a report released this month, it’s tough to save money while greatly expanding health care coverage at the same time: more good reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
partsisparts Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 obama's own budget office says he's wrong: more good reading For the third time... Are you planning on using medicare? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) obama's own budget office says he's wrong: more good reading I really don't care whether or not we have to fund it if Obama is wrong, all the money pissed away in Iraq would have payed for the program for 20 years. If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to heal people. Health Care reform is coming Nap, and I'd prefer to here you whine about it after the fact, then trying to persuade people not to support it. The only industrialized nation out of 20 that does not provide national health care, and we pay more for these services then any other country on the planet. 14% of our GDP goes to pay for our current system. NVSKED, and partsisparts are both on the right side of this issue. You supported deficit spending for a fruitless war, but you oppose even one dollar being spent to repair our broken medical system WTF! Here is a question I have for you guys then. After we get 47 million people insured and getting regular health care, where are we going to get the doctors to provide the services? This is a very good question, and believe it or not the community hospital in my town is laying off medical staff. Right now Ohio was the state hardest hit by manufacturing out sourcing. The unexpected consequences is that these people now unemployed no longer have medical benefits through their previous employers. Since this is true, the medical facilities have been forced to fight for the handful of people that still have medical coverage. Since there is less people with coverage then there is less demand for medical facilities, and staff. Obviously once a national care plan is implemented there will be a greater demand for qualified people, and facilities. This demand will get unemployed medical workers back to work, and create demand for more qualified people. The answer is in capping malpractice suits, and restricting what claims are worthy of punitive damages, and regulating the sale of malpractice insurance to drive down the costs to physicians who already practice, and those thinking about it as a career. This will alleviate costs to doctors making it a more attractive field to want to work in. Then the final step is to offer tax incentives, grants, and dirt cheap loans to people attending medical school so that new physicians are not saddled with 10's of thousands of dollars in debt on day 1 of practicing after they have been licensed! Edited October 5, 2009 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I really don't care whether or not we have to fund it if Obama is wrong, all the money pissed away in Iraq would have payed for the program for 20 years. If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to heal people. Health Care reform is coming Nap, and I'd prefer to here you whine about it after the fact, then trying to persuade people not to support it. The only industrialized nation out of 20 that does not provide national health care, and we pay more for these services then any other country on the planet. 14% of our GDP goes to pay for our current system. NVSKED, and partsisparts are both on the right side of this issue. You supported deficit spending for a fruitless war, but you oppose even one dollar being spent to repair our broken medical system WTF! This is a very good question, and believe it or not the community hospital in my town is laying off medical staff. Right now Ohio was the state hardest hit by manufacturing out sourcing. The unexpected consequences is that these people now unemployed no longer have medical benefits through their previous employers. Since this is true, the medical facilities have been forced to fight for the handful of people that still have medical coverage. Since there is less people with coverage then there is less demand for medical facilities, and staff. Obviously once a national care plan is implemented there will be a greater demand for qualified people, and facilities. This demand will get unemployed medical workers back to work, and create demand for more qualified people. The answer is in capping malpractice suits, and restricting what claims are worthy of punitive damages, and regulating the sale of malpractice insurance to drive down the costs to physicians who already practice, and those thinking about it as a career. This will alleviate costs to doctors making it a more attractive field to want to work in. Then the final step is to offer tax incentives, grants, and dirt cheap loans to people attending medical school so that new physicians are not saddled with 10's of thousands of dollars in debt on day 1 of practicing after they have been licensed! Since there is less people with coverage then there is less demand for medical facilities, and staff. so now you are saying that there are less people insured so they are laying off staff?...what happened to the argument that uninsured people were getting healthcare now....in the ER's.......so why would they lay-off staff........you can't habe it both ways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Do you think they are going to get sick at the same time? I do believe the AMA is for reform. 75% of doctors are behind reform. I guess they want the additional busisness. Besides the 47 million people that are uninsured are still getting health care. Do you think none of those people ever get sick. They go to the emergency room and get treatment. I'm not talkig about emergency rooms. Regular care and visits. Now we will need to schedule 47 million more appointments for yearly checkups with the same amount of doctors. How does this work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) I'm not talkig about emergency rooms. Regular care and visits. Now we will need to schedule 47 million more appointments for yearly checkups with the same amount of doctors. How does this work? what they don't won't say, but I will......long lines, rationing and denied care Edited October 5, 2009 by napfirst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aces Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Something is Wrong in America Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furious1Auto Posted October 5, 2009 Author Share Posted October 5, 2009 (edited) so now you are saying that there are less people insured so they are laying off staff?...what happened to the argument that uninsured people were getting healthcare now....in the ER's.......so why would they lay-off staff........you can't habe it both ways The situation in the state of Ohio is unique because we have the highest unemployment rate in the country. The official national average is 9.8%, in Ohio, the official rate is 14%. Yes they are laying off medical staff here. You obviously don't understand the emergency room argument. The hospital is not laying off because there is a lack of people needing care, it is because of the lack of people that can pay. They will expect less staff to handle more patients, which means the quality of care will continue to deteriorate. You will pay higher premiums because the hospital will bill your insurance company enough to cover their expenses. If everyone contributed you and everyone else that buys insurance would have less to pay, because the burden would be shared by all. Nap I think your problem is that you like to argue for the sake of arguing, and most of the time you just don't understand what other people are saying. Don't you understand the principle. If you have 20M people and 10M pay for coverage. For everyone of the 10M that don't pay in and receive care. (and at some point it there life they will) The hospitals, and physicians will have to charge the money to cover there expenses to someone, so they charge it to the insurance companies that are obligated to pay. This means the insurance companies have to charge you higher premiums to cover the high prices they are required to pay. Now if all of the 20M contributed voluntary, or involuntary there would be less liability to the individual that pays. This means there would be no need for your employer to shift the premiums onto the employee because it wouldn't be nearly as expensive per capita for those who contribute. Edited October 5, 2009 by Furious1Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nvsked Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Something is Wrong in America Furious....save your breath :beatdeadhorse: Aces YOU THE PERSON :bowdown: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.