Health care proposal mandates coverage, drops public option

Status
Not open for further replies.
Liebling:-))) said:
That´s bad that you don´t know the difference between disrespect and disagree. :)



Oh I only said that I know your own word that you are anti-socialist. It makes me laugh because you don´t know what social is.



wow, it show itself that you are not telling the truth. It´s good thing that I keep your post to remember.


Of course I know that low income people get medicare SSI, SDI, etc. what´s your point.

My point is middle class people who can´t get medicare, can´t afford to have healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...

Majority of middle class families does have health insurance, mostly from job.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
That´s bad that you don´t know the difference between disrespect and disagree. :)
Click to expand...
:zzz:

Liebling:-))) said:
Oh I only said that I know your own word that you are anti-socialist. It makes me laugh because you don´t know what social is.
Click to expand...
:confused: do you really want to go there? It will break my heart :(

Liebling:-))) said:
wow, it show itself that you are not telling the truth. It´s good thing that I keep your post to remember.
Click to expand...
so link please? or you gonna keep accusing me?

Liebling:-))) said:
Of course I know that low income people get medicare SSI, SDI, etc. what´s your point.

My point is middle class people who can´t get medicare, can´t afford to have healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...
yes but hospitals have finance plan and yes somewhere in Obama's health care reform will help that but mandatory coverage and public option makes no sense.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
:lol: I don´t bother to say anything but one thing I would suggest you to search and educate yourself.
Click to expand...
and you too (but not me cuz I've already done my homework) :)

Liebling:-))) said:
You can see how many doctors and nurses here in Germany to compare with America. We have many doctors, specialists, therapies here in Germany that´s why we don´t have waiting list.
Click to expand...
and so do we. That's why some Canadians came to America. You know what's funny? Fidel Castro didn't even use his own country's surgeon for his intestinal operation!!

Cuban's "universal health care" = EPIC FAIL! :lol:

Liebling:-))) said:
How does the NHS compare to US healthcare? | News | guardian.co.uk
Click to expand...
what about it? NHS is not German healthcare. strange that you're using it to back your case in this post. :scratch:

again - you do not have millions of illegal immigrants to deal with and to pay for. We do. If we didn't have illegal immigrant problem, we probably can help with health care without Obama's health care reform. You also do not have major international efforts to deal with either. :cool2:
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Yes I understand your point.

Like what I said other thread that I personally disagree with Obama for not increase few % tax on middle class people if Obama´s healthcare reform pass.
Click to expand...
And that's no small point. This can't come out deficit neutral without people paying for it. He argued the absurd and tried to shove though this huge complex bill in a matter of weeks before anyone could really scrutinize it. That's why there's such a level of distrust.

Liebling:-))) said:
Obama´s speech for healthcare plan sound similar as German manatary health insurance we have here in Germany. We don´t have any waiting list here in Germany. All what I know waiting list is in UK and Canada, that´s all but they still positive their healthcare system because they don´t lost their home to medical bill.
Click to expand...
As you said, the number of doctors and nurses has an effect on that. If we don't get more doctors and nurses, wait lists will be one of the possibilities. We could avoid that by government rationing or increasing out-of-pocket costs for the consumers, but the President is denying that too. Something has to give.
 
Foxrac said:
Well, some Americans are happy with their health care like Jiro is one of them and there's other Americans are unhappy with health care like Jillio is one of them so they are fighting over health care issue, especially Obama sponsored health care reform and affordable private insurance to everyone, backed by republican, it means federal will pay some of them.
Click to expand...
It's interesting you bring that up. The question isn't whether we like or dislike the current state of health care. The question is whether the reform will improve it or make it worse. If reform degrades the quality of our system, then we've either ruined a good thing (from Jiro's perspective) or taken a bad thing and made it even worse (from jillio's perspective). If reform improves our system, then we've made a good thing even better or made a bad thing good, depending again on perspective.

Our system has its problems, but it also has its strengths. I think the proposed reform may improve some of our problems, but it will also exacerbate other problems and damage some of the strengths of our current system. In other words, whatever benefits come from the reform will be far outweighed by the downsides. I want a reform that will fix the problems without exacerbating them or tearing down our strengths.
 
I'm not sure why pointing out the high costs of health care is supposed to convince me to support a reform that I believe will only make health care more expensive.
 
darkdog said:
It's interesting you bring that up. The question isn't whether we like or dislike the current state of health care. The question is whether the reform will improve it or make it worse. If reform degrades the quality of our system, then we've either ruined a good thing (from Jiro's perspective) or taken a bad thing and made it even worse (from jillio's perspective). If reform improves our system, then we've made a good thing even better or made a bad thing good, depending again on perspective.

Our system has its problems, but it also has its strengths. I think the proposed reform may improve some of our problems, but it will also exacerbate other problems and damage some of the strengths of our current system. In other words, whatever benefits come from the reform will be far outweighed by the downsides. I want a reform that will fix the problems without exacerbating them or tearing down our strengths.
Click to expand...

Uhh...that would be your perspective of my perspective. It does not accurately reflect my position at all.:cool2: Please do not presume to speak for me.
 
jillio said:
Uhh...that would be your perspective of my perspective. It does not accurately reflect my position at all.:cool2: Please do not presume to speak for me.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's my perspective of Foxrac's perspective of your perspective. I didn't mean to misrepresent your position, so I apologize.
 
darkdog said:
It's interesting you bring that up. The question isn't whether we like or dislike the current state of health care. The question is whether the reform will improve it or make it worse. If reform degrades the quality of our system, then we've either ruined a good thing (from Jiro's perspective) or taken a bad thing and made it even worse (from jillio's perspective). If reform improves our system, then we've made a good thing even better or made a bad thing good, depending again on perspective.

Our system has its problems, but it also has its strengths. I think the proposed reform may improve some of our problems, but it will also exacerbate other problems and damage some of the strengths of our current system. In other words, whatever benefits come from the reform will be far outweighed by the downsides. I want a reform that will fix the problems without exacerbating them or tearing down our strengths.
Click to expand...

And I would like a million dollars, but chances are great that no one will place that in my hand anytime soon. Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The question is, which reforms will benefit the largest number of citizens of this country, not what is best for me. And when the largest number os citizens are benefitted, I, in turn, receive benefit from the overall changes that occur.
 
jillio said:
And I would like a million dollars, but chances are great that no one will place that in my hand anytime soon. Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The question is, which reforms will benefit the largest number of citizens of this country, not what is best for me. And when the largest number os citizens are benefitted, I, in turn, receive benefit from the overall changes that occur.
Click to expand...
Yup. That pretty much sums up my point.
 
darkdog said:
Yup. That pretty much sums up my point.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't, as you are simply focusing on one small portion of my perspective, just as you focus on one small section of the reform bill. Try to take a wider perspective.
 
Jiro said:
boring.... :zzz: I'm not interested in playing word game.


...... right... I'm anti-fascist, anti-socialist, anti-Nazi, anti-etc except capitalism & democracy - just about majority of Americans too. Your point is?


link please?


poor people and unemployed people do get benefits in here too. It's called Medicaid (or Medicare? I get confused), SSI, SDI, food stamp, free clinic, public housing, and dozen more. Our tax money pays for it :)
Click to expand...


Medicaid is for anyone who have LOW incomes/resource and work too little or never. They tend to get SSI if they happen to be disability then medicaid. Medicare for anyone who have worked for years and get either SSDI or retirement at age 65. FOr SSI people have little $$ SSI and little $ retirement then they can have both medicaid and medicare. Medicaid,Medicare and food stmaps are under the other dept, not Social Security Adm. SSA only helps claimants to fill out for medicare, medicaid and food stamps. SO medicare medicaid and food stamps are belonging the dept that are more like of "low income dept". Every states have their own names for that dept. 8 section housing has their own state's depts and more.
 
Liebling:-))) said:
My point is middle class people who can´t get medicare, can´t afford to have healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify this one, Medicare is for anyone who is on benefit only if they are disabled under SS disability (only over age 18) or at age 65 under retirement. EX: I can't get medicare because i am not on benefit.
 
If this health bill is pass people will be fined $3,800 if they refuse to get health insurance! I think this per family. This is horrible! People are going to be bullied by the government to get health insurance!
 
whatdidyousay! said:
If this health bill is pass people will be fined $3,800 if they refuse to get health insurance! I think this per family. This is horrible! People are going to be bullied by the government to get health insurance!
Click to expand...

And, if these people choose not to get health insurance, and they make the choice freely and must, as a result of their choice, also accept the consequences of their choices.

But tell me, if the amount of uninsured does not go down depreciably by mandating health care coverage, and yet they still continue to receive health care services for which they are unable to pay, how exactly will it contribute to lowering the cost of medical care for the rest?
 
jillio said:
Actually, it doesn't, as you are simply focusing on one small portion of my perspective, just as you focus on one small section of the reform bill. Try to take a wider perspective.
Click to expand...
Let me restate my point and take you out of it entirely. My point was that how positively or negatively one views our current system is less relevant than whether the reform will improve it or degrade it overall.

Is that really so different than "Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The question is, which reforms will benefit the largest number of citizens of this country, not what is best for me."? Both seem to take an equally wide perspective. In other words, we agree on how we should look at this.
 
darkdog said:
Let me restate my point and take you out of it entirely. My point was that how positively or negatively one views our current system is less relevant than whether the reform will improve it or degrade it overall.

Is that really so different than "Everything is a cost benefit analysis. The question is, which reforms will benefit the largest number of citizens of this country, not what is best for me."? Both seem to take an equally wide perspective. In other words, we agree on how we should look at this.
Click to expand...

Basing your support/non-support on how it will affect you, as an individual, is hardly equal, in scope, to deciding support/non-support from the perspective of how it will affect the rest of society as a whole. One narrows the persective to the individual, one widens the perspective to see the individual as a part of the greater whole. Depends on your value system, I suppose.
 
As long as loyal Fox news viewers pay the entire tab, I LOVE it. More free moolah for me, right out of their vacation funds!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top