- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
I was with President Obama today.
- Thread starter PocketAces
- Start date
I bet you was so mad, that you typed with the CAP LOCK on.
:box2: :box2: :box2:
I think it's too soon to say whether Obama has done a good job or a bad job. I'm just thankful that he was able to initiate the ARRA2009 (American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) that will make it possible for me to have health insurance.
Since I am "uninsurable", I have been forced to go with Cobra at $777/month for my husband and me. If the Government wasn't subsidizing 65% I don't know what we'd do.
Since I am "uninsurable", I have been forced to go with Cobra at $777/month for my husband and me. If the Government wasn't subsidizing 65% I don't know what we'd do.
Woodson, I would not go see the President if I was paid to, he is nothing less than a communist dictator parading around as President. I could not stomach listening to him spew his bullshit lies.
I am not trying to make this a personal attack at all nor do I care to, I just despise the President, he does not even come on tv at my house, he is not allowed, channel is changed the second his face hits the screen, I respect nothing he has done or will do.
That is not my personality to layoff, I was not trying to rain on his parade, just stating my opinion.
- Jun 11, 2007
- 4,564
- 3
- 0
:00hour CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN:00hour
:toast: Congrats and here's to health and happiness for you and the hubby:mj06:
va...i have no problem with having some plan put in place that addresses the uninsured in this country...that number seems to change depending on who you get your info from....
what i have a problem with is a single payer governmental system for everyone(except the politicians,who are are too smart to let themselves be included in their own system because they know it`ll be a disaster).....
by that i mean a governmental system that is "alleged" to provide choice but in truth is designed to put private insurers out of business and forces everyone into a single payer system to help support that system...and that penalizes those that already have insurance they`re satisfied with....in other words,a single payer system that rations care to the elderly and infrm to cut costs....
some may claim that that`s the health care they have now...i can`t say that...i`m extremely happy with blue cross...and have always been...
i don`t want to be penalized because some don`t want to purchase their own healthcare...and there are many that can afford it but choose not to...we have some on this board..
i don`t want canada`s system...i don`t want england`s system...i don`t want a system that our own politicians(those that devised the system) want no part of...
unfortunately,i think that`s where this is headed...
i can elaborate further if anyone wants particulars...
- Jun 11, 2007
- 4,564
- 3
- 0
there's NO I in team WEAZ....VaNurse just explained how somthing helped her family out and you come back in with ME ME ME ME ME
. Evidently SOME have good opinion sof how it has HELPED as to they have or had no insurance at all!!! FORTUNATELY for yourself and family you have one of the best, would u like to trade your bcbs of course not but many are very pleased to have SOME insurance now, and helping out a little as you kepp your GREAT healthcare shouldnt be alot ot ask? LOVE THY NEIGHBOR?:142smilie 
Will you sign my hat at the golf outing? Freaking hilarious.. and a I love Wease. :142smilie
Enjoy your weekend fellas!
:toast:
What do you mean, we're good. You don't want to hear about the similarities and differences in the English v. Canadian healthcare systems and why ours is superior?
Give wease 24 hours and a search engine and he will master any topic and I for one would like some more particulars
I'd like to examine this a bit more. You can allow for some kind of program/system that addresses the uninsured. And then you say you don't want to be penalized because some don't want to purchase their own. And of course there are those who simply cannot afford to pay hundreds of dollars a month for an insurance policy that will provide little more than a high deductible that they probably can't meet in times of need, without extreme hardship on the family - if it can be done at all. Those are the exact people that are currently causing all of our costs to go up - or at least in part. So, the current "system" costs us all plenty when looking at the uninsured.
People are required to carry automobile insurance, and if they don't have it they are fined and open to lawsuits. If there was something like this in place, or a single payer solution, it would reduce costs in many ways for all of us - especially considering the power of the government in negotiating en masse, and not having the individual who cannot bring any real power to the table when it comes to cost. We pay for the unisured now - and do you really think that if there was a single payer system that the tax increases you would pay (if any at all) would be greater than your monthly premium that you currently pay? I don't know, I just doubt that would be the case. Maybe there is some reason to think that, but I can't really see it.
Why are you so worried about private insurers being put out of business - when they are designed and run to turn a profit for their shareholders and management? Do you honestly think these insurers are looking out for your best interest, in all cases, or even some cases, when profit is their single most important theme - and if they don't turn it, they go out of business. Who is paying for that profit, and for the right for them to keep costs down and pay as little as they can get away with? That's right - we are. I'd imagine that the government would at least care as much about what's good for me as a private insurer does - why wouldn't they?
And healthcare providers - hospitals, etc? There's really not that much competition in this area, when you get down to it. There's generally one hospital in most areas, people go to it. The local clinic, etc. What motivation do they have to keep cost to the patient down? They are doing the same thing - they are in business to make a profit, for shareholders and management. Why would they care more about me than the government would? The government doesn't need to turn a profit - and they would definitely have more clout politically and cost-wise than I would in dealing with these people.
Finally, the pharmaceutical companies. These organization hold patents and exclusivity on the drugs we pay out the ass for. They can charge what they want, with no negotiation to deal with. The government certainly could be a better watchdog to this activity than you or I could. They could negotiate, put pressure on, look elsewhere for drugs, and require a sensible price for these things - all things that would bring down the cost.
None of this is ever mentioned when people are screaming about how crappy things will get, and how much "more" whatever program is we are looking at. The simple fact that all of these organizations, including many doctors, are organizing against this. Why? I don't think it's hard to guess - it's because they want to continue sticking it to us and making so much off the current system. Otherwise, why would they be so organized in opposition? And many doctors are excited and supporting of the ideas.
I don't see why this can't be discussed and looked at in a sensible way. Much like I think we could look at limiting liabilities of doctors and health providers in litigation scenarios. That would bring costs down. The insurance company really wins all the way around if you look at it. They get paid by us, by our employers, by doctors, by providers, and do everything they can to limit what they pay out. If any area is less worthy of worrying about, IMO, it has to be in this area that you seem to care so much about being competed with.
Parties aside, May numbers not in, but in April: 60,000 new government jobs created.
A little on the high side, for one month, don't you (Dems and Rep's) think?
In a time when most other sectors are laying people off, the government is doing just fine.
And who pays for it?
The government manufactures no product for resale, like a tire maker.
They offer no billable service, like an electrician.
There is only one way the government obtains the revenue necessary to pay those 60,000 new salaries - they tax you and me.
But, America - love it or leave.
(I'm in BC right now.)
If you've seen the 'Hannity' show once, you've seen every episode.
On the other hand - Rachel Maddow has a penis.
And let's face it - even Dems know Olberman is insane.
God? Really? They don't even pretend anymore? They just come right out and admit it, unashamedly? Beautiful, just beautiful.
(Hey, Trampled - Bootsy? You play bass? I've been able to lay down the lines from 'Flashlight' since I was 14 years old. I'm runnin a '74 Rick thru a Crate B-150 these days.)
A little on the high side, for one month, don't you (Dems and Rep's) think?
In a time when most other sectors are laying people off, the government is doing just fine.
And who pays for it?
The government manufactures no product for resale, like a tire maker.
They offer no billable service, like an electrician.
There is only one way the government obtains the revenue necessary to pay those 60,000 new salaries - they tax you and me.
But, America - love it or leave.
(I'm in BC right now.)
If you've seen the 'Hannity' show once, you've seen every episode.
On the other hand - Rachel Maddow has a penis.
And let's face it - even Dems know Olberman is insane.
God? Really? They don't even pretend anymore? They just come right out and admit it, unashamedly? Beautiful, just beautiful.
(Hey, Trampled - Bootsy? You play bass? I've been able to lay down the lines from 'Flashlight' since I was 14 years old. I'm runnin a '74 Rick thru a Crate B-150 these days.)
Last edited:
