unclestripey
Well-Known Member
:haha::haha::haha::haha::awesomework:
New Health Care Bill
- Thread starter slednecks1124
- Start date
Help Support Hardline Crawlers:
:haha::haha::haha::haha::awesomework:
ZedMikey
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Jaydog
Well-Known Member
Here is my stance, I don't want to pay your mortgage, I don't want to pay for your food, I don't want to pay for your healthcare, and I don't want to mow your lawn, I have worked very, very hard to get where I am at, and you should too :awesomework:
japerry
Well-Known Member
WEll, yah. which is the unfortunate part. But what I'd rather see is 100% of our government money going to a non-profit, non-government ran, insurance company. Keep it all in the free market, but instead of paying fat bonuses to insurance execs, pay it to a company that'd work for the people.
It wouldn't be a monopoly because other insurance companies would be allowed to compete, and there would be cases where other insurance companies might have better coverage in places. The non-profit should cover only essential and preventative visits. But it wouldn't cover cosmetics, or other elective surgeries.
boxboy
can I be your friend...
It's a new world open your eyes I don't have to work hard any more Obama's going to take care of me :awesomework: I can quit my job I have worked hard at for many years and live off Obama's new deal! :awesomework::cheer::awesomework:
japerry
Well-Known Member
This is why you tax those things :awesomework: why do you think Cigs are so expensive in Canada? If you have a public healthcare option, there needs to be equalizers for those who wish to indulge.
But no need to ban things, thats just silly. and doesn't work. How much money could we make off legalizing pot? :D
ZedMikey
Well-Known Member
I guess that would be easier than not covering smokers... and I'm with you on the legalizing marijuana. Legalize it, tax it, call it a day. :awesomework:
CrustyJeep
Well-Known Member
I don't want you, cook my bread,
I don't want you, make my bed,
I don't want you, be no slave,
I don't want you, work all day,
I don't want you, wash my clothes,
I don't want you, keep a home,
I don't want you, be no slave,
I don't want you, work all day,
I don't want you, keep a home,
I don't want you, wash my clothes,
Sam I am.
:flipoff:
Jaydog
Well-Known Member
I heard a good analogy the other day, it's like a family buying a huge house, they are all excited, it looks great, feels great, so they decide to buy it, they get all moved in and a month later the first payment is due and they realize that they can't afford this huge house that they all love.
Guess what, in Nov. the payment is due :D
Guess what, in Nov. the payment is due :D
Jaydog
Well-Known Member
I don't want my wife working 80 hrs a week, but somebody's got too :haha:
And who would you propose that are hired to run and manage these companies? You think you can find people with the skills, experience, talent etc to run these company for $100,000k per year? You won't even find them for $1,000,000 per year. Those people that are qualified to hold those kinds of positions can demand that level of income elsewhere, and they'll do so. The end results is that you WON'T have a well run company unless you can afford to hire people capable of doing the job. What's the right amount to pay them? Whatever it takes to take them away from other jobs or positions that they are doing or able to do.
japerry
Well-Known Member
oh no, I'm talking way more than 1mil. GM CEOs used to take home between 10M and 20M. But this is beans compared to profits in 2008. 12.2Billion. or 12,200M one CEO's pay of 30mill is .16%! and 12.2B is only PROFIT, meaning thats what shareholders get AFTER the CEO is paid his/her millions.
So yes, you can get qualified people working in a non-profit when we're talking billions. You can get qualified people in there. This is no county run Heath dept we're talkin' about.
Lunnzz
Well-Known Member
The covering of pre-existing condition's is for my family the best part. My son who is autistic would have not been able to get health insurance because Autism disqualified him for health insurance. So how would who propose a mentally disabled person to get a good enough job that would provide health insurance? Let me know I am all ears so maybe some people should think about this first the list that dis-qualifies people for health insurance would blow your mind. However much people despise Michael Moore his movie Sicko might open some eyes if 5% of the movie is true and he made up the rest it is enough to piss off the average person. I love this country and have served it for the last 15yrs and although I do not pay for health insurance. So I don't know the burden others feel but I do have family that have dealt with insurance companies. My brother in-law got a $187k dr bill when his son was born pre-mature letter stated his child was not on the policy the kid wasn't born yet how was he supposed to add him? Lucky it was a mistake. The country will be ran for a long time the way it is ran now the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Well ya know what I ain't rich but I'm happy.:redneck:
japerry
Well-Known Member
+1 :awesomework:
Most people who complain about healthcare reform are those who aren't sick. Those who complain about healthcare reform also think Obama is a Muslim, Antichrist, socialist, etc.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-22/scary-new-gop-poll/
Personally I think he is too optimistic about government efficiency and the ability for government not to cater to special interests. But we'll see how it goes, our system is seriously messed up, how worse could it get?
Broken Again
Well-Known Member
Just my 2 cents....
It's all about power.
Insure 30,000,000 people and they will prolly vote for you.
What I don't like most about this bill is in how they did it. Obama campained on open and transparent government. This has been anything but that. Back room deals and bribery have been at the core of their methods. And strong arm tactics if bribery fails. It has been about what democrat congressmen could get for a vote. (no republican votes needed, but they did try to bribe some)
Bottom line is that the democrats own this thing and IMO they are going to pay a heavy price come November. I will vote for anybody that runs on repealing it. My vote will count.
And try as you might BobR you cannot blame this one on Bush.:D
It's all about power.
Insure 30,000,000 people and they will prolly vote for you.
What I don't like most about this bill is in how they did it. Obama campained on open and transparent government. This has been anything but that. Back room deals and bribery have been at the core of their methods. And strong arm tactics if bribery fails. It has been about what democrat congressmen could get for a vote. (no republican votes needed, but they did try to bribe some)
Bottom line is that the democrats own this thing and IMO they are going to pay a heavy price come November. I will vote for anybody that runs on repealing it. My vote will count.
And try as you might BobR you cannot blame this one on Bush.:D
J_SIN
Well-Known Member
such a ridiculous comment. :looser:
cant wait for the full details to come out on that poll
Last edited:
Duck Dodgers
Well-Known Member
If this is such a great deal why is the Bamster going to Iowa City to promote it today? Here eat this turd, it's good , really it is, trust me you'll like it. What? Me eat the turd ? No I have steak. But here eat the turd.
What? SSI is broke because no one is working and paying into it? Not to worry we have health care, here have another turd.
What? SSI is broke because no one is working and paying into it? Not to worry we have health care, here have another turd.
Broken Again
Well-Known Member
Let me see if I got this......
They passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it.
Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it.
To be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes.
With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes.
All to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese.
And financed by a country that's broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
:D
They passed a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it.
Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it.
To be signed by a president that also is exempt from it and hasn't read it and who smokes.
With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes.
All to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese.
And financed by a country that's broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
:D
MNboy
Well-Known Member
Couple things from the peanut gallery. White Trash, I understand your thinking and went a lot of years without insurance myself. That said, my father was in perfect health until a month ago when he was diagnosed with brain cancer. He thankfully has insurance but a month into it they have probably surpassed the half million mark in bills. You would never pay that off, payment plan or otherwise, and would be filing backruptcy.
Second, the movie Sicko, however much is actually true, brings up at least one good point. Health care costs in the US are way out of whack, the same care elsewhere paid out of pocket would be pennies on the dollar at most, and the thought that all non-US healthcare is substandard is pure BS.
Lastly, this quote:
Second, the movie Sicko, however much is actually true, brings up at least one good point. Health care costs in the US are way out of whack, the same care elsewhere paid out of pocket would be pennies on the dollar at most, and the thought that all non-US healthcare is substandard is pure BS.
Lastly, this quote:
Think about auto insurance for a moment and see if you want to change your answer.
Last edited:
Think about your statement. You don't HAVE to drive a car, therefore you don't HAVE to have car insurance.
That argument has no merit.
mark
Well-Known Member
One difference:
having a car and driving it on the road is a *privilege*, not a right or requirement.
If you don't have a car, or don't drive it on the public roads, you don't need insurance. Its that simple. 'If you want the privilege of driving on this PUBLIC road, you need to follow THESE rules'... but you have alternatives and thats a choice you make.
The health care things is different, you have no choice, they are requiring EVERYONE to have it, one way or another.
The government needs to work on way to make the COST of health-care less. Tort reform or whatever. Do that, and everything else will start to align. Take health-care insurance away from being an "employer" thing and make it a personal thing. If employers want to give their employees extra money to cover health-care costs, that's there right at an improved "benefit" package.... but purchase and maintenance of individual health-care should be the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL only, and not a condition of employment.
RusM
Well-Known Member
You don't have to drive, there are many other options available to people who do not drive and these people are not required to have insurance. This healthcare bill is the biggest scam going on multiple levels. Get ready, no time for lube! :5bitch::5bitch:
There needs to be real change in the healthcare industry and the laws that govern that industry. This will never happen as there is both tacit and obvious collusion between congressman and senators with various business interests. How many congressman/senators go back to what they were doing previously after they are out of office? How many go on to make exorbitant amounts of money as consultants? When was the last time a congressman/senator actually listened to their constituents? We're all ****ed, we have been for quite some time, and there is not a goddamned thing you can do about it.
MNboy
Well-Known Member
I wasn't quite clear enough. I wasn't arguing that it's the same thing or that auto insurance was mandatory for everyone. I was pointing out that a similar unconstitutional argument has been fought and lost in the automobile arena and I wouldn't doubt that the biggest crooks in our country (lawyers) could push this fight in whatever direction the money is being thrown. Our constitutional rights have been **** on enough that I don't blindly count on anything these days.
CrustyJeep
Well-Known Member
Lost because it isn't technically unconstitutional.
These are two complete separate issues. You were quite clear as you were suggesting that since we are required to have car insurance, we can be forced to have health insurance, and as such, you suggested that the other person should reconsider their comment or position.
cisco
Well-Known Member
The reason we have car insurance is so we can compensate our selves and others as a result of misshap / bad decisions. Seems fair.
So what about all the people without health insurance that get medical attention and never pay the bill? We end up paying for it. How fair is that?
So what about all the people without health insurance that get medical attention and never pay the bill? We end up paying for it. How fair is that?
CrustyJeep
Well-Known Member
It's not fair, it just isn't constitutional to require people to do anything as a condition of being alive. Well, except file a tax return of course :rolleyes:
crash2
-Oh no I picked a side-
One "hopefull" aspect I can see with making everybody pay for health care is more people in the healthcare pool and possable lower rates.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
For Sale First Generation 4Runner Rock Crawler for sale or trade
- Latest: FirstGenFunRunner
-
-
-
Withdrawn First Generation 4Runner Rock Crawler for sale or trade
- Latest: FirstGenFunRunner
-
