An outsider watching the US health care debate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Baron Of Hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

Right. Obama should damn near be impeached for saving the global economy from collapse, sending out a life preserver to the U.S. auto industry and attempting to reform the outrageous failure of the private heath care industry.

---

Who is seriously trying to do anything close to impeaching President Obama?

---

Right now only the crazy people like the birthers and truthers.

---

Truthers? You mean like Van Jones former Obama Administration Green Czar? Something tells me that the truthers aren't calling for Obama's impeachment.

---

No Van Jones isn't a truther.

Truthers = People that want the truth as they see it known about 911. They believe the crashes were fake and the government was behind it all.

Van Jones signed a petitions for an investigation about events on 9-11. The petition itself makes no mention on were guilt lies. The far right used this to claim Van Jones as a radically to trick morons.

You can read the petition he signed here
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?...41026093059633

Politics is not easy, but if I were to say what should be in there.

1. up to $20,000 (or pick a better number) tax deductible towards healthcare expenses or contributed to a health savings account. Employee and employer combined. (No. SRS is not considered healthcare expenses.)

2. Employers are required to match the contribution. This includes salaried and hourly workers.

3. Every individual is required to see a physical, at least once a year. Otherwise, he cannot claim the tax deduction.

4. The Fed Gov (using our tax dollars) shall establish a Third party administrator to handle claims and provide Information Technology support to Hospitals and Clinics that choose to form a co-op. In two years, these co-ops will gradually fund this department and eventually buy it out from the government and take it private. The directors and shareholders can only be nominated by the co-ops that this TPA is servicing and can never be a public company.

4. For the people earning below $50,000 (let's say). The gov will create a separate account, which can only be used for preventative care and emergency. This account will accumulate a negative balance when used. If the individual take a deduction as stated in #1, corresponding amount will be taken out of this account - tax deductible.

5. The account will be charged and accrue an interest equivalent to the 10 year bond.

6. If a person dies, this balance will be considered a lien to his estate. Therefore, it should be paid off before any inheritance can be passed on.

Effects:
1. If the employee chose to decline coverage, he loses out of the deduction.

2. Since there is a cap, anything above that will be considered as income and thus taxable.

3. Uninsured are covered. If let's say they won the lotto, they have to pay it back.

4. The limitation on forming a coop is the limited infrastructure that they have against established insurance companies. Providing seed money for development, will spur growth. Hence, encourage competition.

I'll update when I can think of something else.

Just watched Sicko (here come the Michael Moore bashers). Quite shocking.

I gotta say...England and France are on the ball. Canada needs to catch up to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogers

You never did get back to me about those pesky graphs did you, duplicatt? :lol:

---

Which part of 'If you can't be civil then you aren't worth having a discussion with?' isn't getting through to you?

---

Ermm, those weren't your last words to me.

---

It may not be a direct quote, but my post of Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:03 pm contains these exact words - "If you can't be civil, then there is no use trying to have a discussion." - which certainly have the same overall meaning.

---

Nice editing of my post again. Grrrrr. I wasn't disputing you said those words, but you directly addressed a few more things to me after them. Cappiche? "Exact words"? :roll: English is your first language isn't it? And the first rule of lying (apparently) is to not get caught. Hence my "bad word" for you... duplicitous.

Now bravely run away. :wink:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&f...&v=BZwuTo7zKM8


For anyone else interested:
Healthcare around the world
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8201711.stm

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

---

Nor did I call you blind when you refused to see the truth.

duplicatt you have seem to veer off from the topic and instead go on about net etiquette.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duplicatt

Rogers: There is far more to civility that simply not calling names. I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong. And when Jay decided to walk away from our one-on-one conversation, I didn't proclaim "victory" and post pictures of Ali gloating over a fallen opponent.

You have much to learn about human interaction.

---

My experience of debating politics on this board is from the P&R forum. When I first arrived here things were extremely vicious there (I don't exaggerate!) primarily because of a right-wing poster who may well have posted in this very thread using a new account. He got very personal with me and a few others and was eventually banned because of it. The ali knockout pic had more to do with him than you. It's a long story. :wink: If you've taken that personally then I apologize to you sincerely. But you did try to play smart with something I said. And in all honesty, I really don't have much respect for people with your political leanings after the shameful events of this passing decade. The fact that insurance companies are bribing politicians should tell you that you're on the wrong side of this debate from the get-go. Why even try and defend the indefensible?

Quote:

---

I didn't call Trish or Jay liars - even when they got their facts wrong.

---

I don't recall either of us getting any facts wrong, even though we were accused of being disingenuous and as misrepresenting the facts, which comes with the connotation of calculatingly and deliberately misconstruing the them. Call me crazy, but attacks directed toward the intent of the speaker rather than toward what is spoken crosses into the domain of the ad hominem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...representation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous

:wink:

Couple simple questions:

1) If health care is such an urgent need, why doesn't it kick in until after the 2012 elections? What are they afraid of? If this is indeed such an urgent issue enact it immediately.

2) The CBO estimates the bills currently presented WILL impact the US budget:
"The blog of the C.B.O. director, Douglas W. Elmendorf, taking into account new “gateways” for access to health insurance, says:
According to our preliminary assessment, enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about $1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period. When fully implemented, about 39 million individuals would obtain coverage through the new insurance exchanges. At the same time, the number of people who had coverage through an employer would decline by about 15 million (or roughly 10 percent), and coverage from other sources would fall by about 8 million, so the net decrease in the number of people uninsured would be about 16 million or 17 million."

Who is going to pay for all of this?

3) So if there is all this fraud out there, how about we just pass a healthcare fraud bill, collect all the billions you say are available in fraud over the next three years. Put that money in the bank, and buy the 47 million people you say don't have health care, but buy it for them in 2013, just like ALL of the proposed health care bills do.

The motives and numbers just don't add up. This is clearly about a power grab and a move towards socialism. If they can screw up the US economy so badly over the next 3 years with cap and spend, health care, stimulus 1, stimulus 2, and God only knows how many more little brothers and sisters that will have. If they can get things so screwed up, and the US so far in debt that the only option, as they will propose it to us, is for the government to take over private enterprise and to become our Nanny.

America is not drinking the cool-aid, someone tell me how your going to pay for the 10 trillion in additional debt your going to pile on to our economy in the years 2013 - 2019.

The only thing we should be rushing to the Presidents table, unread like all the other congressional bills, is one that is titled, "BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT"!