Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:07 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Too bad they can't get their point across without resorting to swastika painting vandalism and disrupting meetings.

Which do you think would be better for the uninsured, staying uninsured or having some type of insurance with a universal plan?

Calling it a death plan already shows a bias and that you wouldn't accept it no matter how good it could be. How come most people seem to be ok with having their taxes go to public education, maintaining public parks, medicare, medicaid, road maintenance etc. but are so against the opportunity for all citizens to have some form of health insurance?

Do any of you have a better idea regarding health care?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-14-2009, 07:56 PM
Bonnie Bonnie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Where the bluebonnets bloom
Posts: 6,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizion
Seniors are a HUGE swing vote for the dems...too bad for Obama in 2012.
I'm hoping...

Also for members of Congress when they're up for re-election for trashing Americans (mainly senior citizens) for showing up at these town hall meetings and actually voicing how upset they are with this bill.

Did anyone see the news story where ACORN bused in people to a town hall meeting. It was a "first come first in" so people who actually lived there couldn't get in to the meeting. And, I'm sure they're cherrypicking who gets in to Obama's televised town hall meetings...

From Maureen Dowd's article:

Quote:
Instead of a multicultural tableau of beaming young idealists on screen, we see ugly scenes of mostly older and white malcontents, disrupting forums where others have come to actually learn something. Instead of hope, we get swastikas, death threats and T-shirts proclaiming “Proud Member of the Mob.”
Exactly who does she think is worried about health care?--these "beaming young idealists" or older folks with real health issues on fixed incomes.

Last edited by Bonnie; 08-14-2009 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-14-2009, 08:01 PM
jason2130
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i dont know all the details of it but the parts i have heard made Congressman Lee Terrys plan not sound to bad, which only extended the health plan the congressman are currently on to people without health insurance if they want it, it was cheaper and the framework is already in place, plus the people who have insurance and are happy with it can keep it

if thats truly all it is and as simple as they said then it dont sound to bad, but other than the couple of times i seen it on the news, and read about it i dont know much about it

again, i dont know much about it, i want to make this clear before someone jumps in with some detail i didnt know about like "thats the plan that calls for killing 80% of the elderly you idiot"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-14-2009, 09:55 PM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
Too bad they can't get their point across without resorting to swastika painting vandalism and disrupting meetings.
Yeah, those anti-Bush, Iraq War protests disgusted me, too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
Which do you think would be better for the uninsured, staying uninsured or having some type of insurance with a universal plan?

Calling it a death plan already shows a bias and that you wouldn't accept it no matter how good it could be. How come most people seem to be ok with having their taxes go to public education, maintaining public parks, medicare, medicaid, road maintenance etc. but are so against the opportunity for all citizens to have some form of health insurance?

Do any of you have a better idea regarding health care?
The simple fact is that we have the best healthcare system in the world in terms of quality and accessibility. What needs to be done is to reform the insurance companies, not to force everyone onto the flawed insurance-based system that we have.

Insurance companies drive prices way up. Get rid of the insurance companies and you force costs to go down, which makes healthcare cheaper for EVERYONE, not just the insured.

Obama's plan fails because it will force millions to lose their current coverage and still leave millions uninsured.

I still maintain that the United States has survived over 200 years without any sort of nationalized healthcare. In fact, we haven't just survived, we've prospered into the most powerful nation in the world. Thus there is no reason to believe that we suddenly need socialized medicine now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-14-2009, 10:04 PM
Buzzard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Yeah, those anti-Bush, Iraq War protests disgusted me, too.

If those protesters used vandalism and disruption of town hall meetings, I'll agree.


The simple fact is that we have the best healthcare system in the world in terms of quality and accessibility. What needs to be done is to reform the insurance companies, not to force everyone onto the flawed insurance-based system that we have.

Not according to what I have read. A couple of hits on that topic from google

http://www.ashp.org/import/News/Heal...e.aspx?id=2349

http://news.healingwell.com/index.php?p=news1&id=531962


Insurance companies drive prices way up. Get rid of the insurance companies and you force costs to go down, which makes healthcare cheaper for EVERYONE, not just the insured.

Obama's plan fails because it will force millions to lose their current coverage and still leave millions uninsured.

Do you have a source for that?

I still maintain that the United States has survived over 200 years without any sort of nationalized healthcare. In fact, we haven't just survived, we've prospered into the most powerful nation in the world. Thus there is no reason to believe that we suddenly need socialized medicine now.
Are you ok with the socialized medicare, medicaid, public park upkeep etc.?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-15-2009, 06:29 PM
KENTUCKYREDBONE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

While our health care system ain't perfect I don't see the need to make it worse!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-16-2009, 04:38 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard
Too bad they can't get their point across without resorting to swastika painting vandalism and disrupting meetings.

Which do you think would be better for the uninsured, staying uninsured or having some type of insurance with a universal plan?

Calling it a death plan already shows a bias and that you wouldn't accept it no matter how good it could be. How come most people seem to be ok with having their taxes go to public education, maintaining public parks, medicare, medicaid, road maintenance etc. but are so against the opportunity for all citizens to have some form of health insurance?

Do any of you have a better idea regarding health care?
If this bill was only about getting the uninsured insured then I would be more willing to accept it. (Although I think there are much better ways to accomplish this with less money and better care.) But that isn't what this bill is about. This bill is about healthcare reform, changing the powers from private insurance companies over to the government. Then it will be ran just as medicare is. Do you think that medicare provides premium healthcare for it's clients? At least with private insurance companies you have some sort of competition to keep each other in check.

I do not believe it is a good idea to have the government involved in the process of making the decisions about which healthcare to provide.

The government hasn't been able to handle medicare properly. Why in the world would anyone think they can handle it for everyone?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-16-2009, 04:43 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

A healthy young person gets cancer or has a horrible accident and racks up a ton of medical bills. Do I think they should lose their house, car, or lose everything they have to pay those bills? Absolutely NOT!

Do I think we should/could have a program to help this person pay these medical bills? Of course.

Do I think the government should be able to dictate which medical services this person can recieve and which they can't? Hell NO!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-16-2009, 04:49 AM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,478
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

We already have free health care for all kids under 18 and the elderly. It is only the working age that should be considered.

If your concern is truly someone who can't afford insurance and gets in a bad situation and racks up huge medical bills or needs an expensive treatment then set up a government fund. The person could file for Medical Aid just like they file for unemployment when not working, or apply for temporary food stamps, or like they give the farmers when their harvest is destroyed by natural disaster. The government wants all this criteria met for medical coverage and this would help provide them with it when this was used on a pre-apply basis. If you knew you needed some type of major medical procedure then you can pre-apply for assistance.

This way only the ones in need actually use the funds.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-16-2009, 06:29 AM
KENTUCKYREDBONE
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
We already have free health care for all kids under 18 and the elderly. It is only the working age that should be considered.

If your concern is truly someone who can't afford insurance and gets in a bad situation and racks up huge medical bills or needs an expensive treatment then set up a government fund. The person could file for Medical Aid just like they file for unemployment when not working, or apply for temporary food stamps, or like they give the farmers when their harvest is destroyed by natural disaster. The government wants all this criteria met for medical coverage and this would help provide them with it when this was used on a pre-apply basis. If you knew you needed some type of major medical procedure then you can pre-apply for assistance.

This way only the ones in need actually use the funds.

That makes alot more since than whats being proposed now! Another good reason to be against it is its written in Gibberish!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.