massachusetts

[Perchoutofwater]

Okay. So let's say we get rid of all of that stuff.

 

What happens when somebody has a baby with very expensive birth defects and nobody wants to volunteer to help take care of the baby? Let's say there are 100 such occurances in Texas in a year at the cost of 250k each. You, your church and other churches are able to help the first 30. After that though - anybody willing to give says, nope - I have aleady done my part. Time for somebody else to help out. What happens to the other 70 babies? Do we say - sucks for you?

 

I've never said I was against state and local governments helping with this expense. My problem is with federal government doing it. I am a firm believer the closer to home your government is the better your government is going to be. I'd also point out that in the past (and I still believe this) that while I disagree with welfare as a matter of principle, as a practical matter I think the ship has sailed and we are now past the point of no return. We have to many people truly dependent on the government, and part of the reason so many are dependent is because they know they can take advantage of these programs. I'd really like to see us scale back a majority of these programs gradually, not paying anything for illegal aliens whether it be welfare (with the exception of medicaid), education , etc... We need to get rid of the anchor law. I know Ursa will come by and say I'm hating on Mexicans again, but the truth is if you live in a border state you are paying a ton of money because of them. The country as a whole may not, but the borders states are have a hugh financial drain.

 

Like I said, at this point I'd just like us to do away with welfare for non-citizens (excluding medicaid) and scale back welfare for citizens to the bear essentials and no, everybody doesn't need a tv or a computer. I've never said we should get rid of medicaid in any form. I have said that if we treat illegals part of that treatment should should include deportation. I'd love to see it where eventually the federal government would get out of welfare all together an allow the states to take care of it, but at this point it is probably a pipe dream and not even worth discussing.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch, it would specific areas of the country that do not have as nuch widespread wealth into depression level survival. Areas that have some affluence should be fine . . others wont.

 

You also assume that somehow charities will suddenly quadruple in donations with a corresponding drop in taxes? You REALLY think most people will do that instead of keep it for themselves? Perch, just based on conversations here at the huddle, I assume you do pretty well for yourself with the family construction business, right? You can AFFORD to be more charitable as all your needs , and more, are amply met, right? I remember a post that said "I am going to get mine regardless", right? I think the hole in your argument is assuming that everyone else is meeting all their needs with money to spare, and will increase their charitiable donations if taxes were lowered. It assumes that if they arent "forced" to provide for others, that most people would choose to just keep their money.

 

Gubmnet isnt an efficient system, it isnt the best case scenario EVER. But I dont think your method would work either . . . and I have no suggestions of an alternative.

 

See my post responding to DJ. I'm really not for no government. I'm not even for against government assistance. I just think the more localized the more efficient. I would love to see the federal government brought back to where hit was in 1930, and state and local governments pick up the slack. I do think that charitable giving would go up significantly if less services were provided by the government both because of the additional savings from taxes, but also a lot of people take the attitude now "why should I give, the government is going to take care of it."

 

BTW - charity side note, my wife worked on the Extreme Home Makeover house last night.

[driveby]

Blowing up the system is exactly what needs to happen. Not propping it up with chewing gum, bailing wire and millions of tax payer dollars.

Perhaps, but Obamacare isn't the solution.

 

And don't you dare say it's better than nothing or it's a start.............

[Kid Cid]

Perhaps, but Obamacare isn't the solution.

 

And don't you dare say it's better than nothing or it's a start.............

Perhaps I wasn't clear. By saying "Not propping it up with chewing gum, bailing wire and millions of tax payer dollars." I really meant, the Bill being bandied about isn't worth the several trees worth of paper it is written on.

[driveby]

Perhaps I wasn't clear. By saying "Not propping it up with chewing gum, bailing wire and millions of tax payer dollars." I really meant, the Bill being bandied about isn't worth the several trees worth of paper it is written on.

Clearly, we are on the same page here then.

[westvirginia]

Clearly, we are on the same page here then.

 

I would hope so. He's post #54 and you're post #55...

[bpwallace49]

And don't you dare say it's better than nothing or it's a start.............

 

Its better than nothing and its a start . . . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jimmy Neutron]

The whole idea behind this bill is insane. We're going to add more people (a lot more) to what everybody thinks is a broken system, forbid insurance companies from dropping folks from coverage or denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and lower costs??? What the hell quality of health care does anyone think this is going to provide?

 

The whole argument has become about health insurance, not health care and especially not cost controls.

[The Irish Doggy]

I don't know what you do up there, but down here we have fund raisers for those people through church's, fire departments, and banks. We donate money of our own accord to help those people, rather than have the government take it from us with the threat of jail. The only problem is when you get into long term care, and then medicaid kicks in and families and friends still help out. I have a cousin that has been in a semi-vegitative state for 18 years. My aunt and uncle haven't been bankrupted by it. They got the support they needed from the community, church, and family, as well as medicaid.

 

 

yeah. all that community help happened too. but bake sales and donations pale in comparison to the scope of this particular issue.

 

also, you might need to adjust your point of view considering an additional 15 years and the rise in medical costs since then.

Edited March 4, 2010 by The Irish Doggy

[Perchoutofwater]

The whole idea behind this bill is insane. We're going to add more people (a lot more) to what everybody thinks is a broken system, forbid insurance companies from dropping folks from coverage or denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and lower costs??? What the hell quality of health care does anyone think this is going to provide?

 

The whole argument has become about health insurance, not health care and especially not cost controls.

 

+1 Anyone with any sense can see what you are saying is true.

[Kid Cid]

The whole idea behind this bill is insane. We're going to add more people (a lot more) to what everybody thinks is a broken system, forbid insurance companies from dropping folks from coverage or denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and lower costs??? What the hell quality of health care does anyone think this is going to provide?

 

The whole argument has become about health insurance, not health care and especially not cost controls.

That is exactly my biggest problem with this entire boondoggle.

[Azazello1313]

the path we're all on now

[Clubfoothead]

If you don't have good health care coverage/affordable coverage under the current system, why should you give a $hit?

[caddyman]

If you don't have good health care coverage/affordable coverage under the current system, why should you give a $hit?

Damn...I knew you were an idiot..but a dumb ass too? Wow. What a ridiculously stupid statement.

[i_am_the_swammi]

the path we're all on now

 

Not a good sign, but not as dire as you make it sound.

 

Small businesses are the one's taking the brunt of this recession on the chin, and are being forced to cut costs in every area. Big companies that are still turning a massive profit are not in the position where they have to shave expenses at every turn, and thus will be much less likely to turn their healthcare coverage over to the state unless they are at a last-resort stage.

 

And when jobs do start to grow, and businesses want to hire the best talent they can, offering prvate health coverage (versus vanilla governement-sponsored plans) will again be a key benefit.

 

While its a path some are one, its over-exageratting to say that ithe gov't system is "the path we are ALL on".

[SEC=UGA]

Here's how I see it...

 

The health care bill as passed is an absolute debacle.

 

The issues I have with government sponsored, run, subsidized, etc.... are these; it creates another entitlement program that people will abuse, "cost controls" will deplete the quality of health care, "cost controls" are not a reality in most social programs, thus the cost estimates are greatly understated and will most certainly be significantly higher than anticipated, health care distribution will become inefficient with increased demand.

 

One thing I pointed out seems contradictory, the part on cost controls. I think the article posted ont he first page regarding Mass's health care program illustrates what I am talking about.

 

Currently, some of the poorest health care that we see is government sponsored health care, I am referring to the VA. It is inefficient, consistently runs over budget and often times neglects the real needs of injured military personnel. The hospitals are typical dirty and understaffed and there have been a number of issues with misdiagnoses. All you need to know about how health care will be run by our government can be deduced through a study of the VA.

 

In cases of individuals born with lifelong genetic/chromosomal abnormalities, there could be a program put in place that will cover their care and medical costs that is taxpayer funded should they be unable to acquire private health insurance. With this program however, there should be a fee/premium charge to the family based upon said family's means.

 

Someone posted a question earlier, "how do you ensure that someone will get insurance in a purely private market?" This is the major problem with the line of thought of people who want nationalized health care. They feel that many things in life are an entitlement, that we should be able to take from those who have and redistribute it those who don't or in many cases are unwilling to sacrifice to have certain goods. This question could very well be asked this way, "how do you ensure that everyone will have a job in a private market?" After all, in many cases a job (income) is just as much of a necessity as is health insurance. So, why don't we start a program that ensures each individual a job, or if not a job, at least a living wage. Should we begin to mandate that all people in this country, whether working or not, are granted a standard minimum wage. Or, "how do you ensure, in a private market, that everyone will have a home?" Do we again, manufacture a program to ensure that all the people in the US have a house? What type of house must they have, is a 800 SF 2 BR apartment large enough for a family of 4 or should they receive a 4 BR 4 BA 2,200 SF home?

 

Yes, there are issues with health care costs in this country. There are also a number of issues with regard to how people spend their income. For instance, 21 to 28 year old individuals are largely uninsured, many of them have the means to provide insurance for themselves, but opt to purchase other items with their money. It is a philosophy that they are young and aren't necessarily in need of insurance because they are too young to get sick. Do we get to the point of dictating how people spend their income, no, it is a choice that the individual must make and poor decision making should have consequences, look at it a s a life lesson, or in some cases an end of life lesson.

 

One thing that has crossed my mind, in regard to subsidizing health care, would be to offer assistance where the government provides a portion of the premium for poorer families. Say that you have a family of 4 who has income below poverty level, both adults work (or at least the mom of the 3 kids works) 40 hours per week or more and they just can't get above that poverty threshold, subsidize their health insurance premium to a private insurer. Cut them a check, actually, cut their carrier a check, every month for the amount of the premium, or portion of the premium, ascribed for a person in their financial situation.

 

I'm sure this could have been much more eloquent, but I didn't feel like putting half a day into writing this.

[Perchoutofwater]

Here's how I see it...

 

The health care bill as passed is an absolute debacle.

 

The issues I have with government sponsored, run, subsidized, etc.... are these; it creates another entitlement program that people will abuse, "cost controls" will deplete the quality of health care, "cost controls" are not a reality in most social programs, thus the cost estimates are greatly understated and will most certainly be significantly higher than anticipated, health care distribution will become inefficient with increased demand.

 

One thing I pointed out seems contradictory, the part on cost controls. I think the article posted ont he first page regarding Mass's health care program illustrates what I am talking about.

 

Currently, some of the poorest health care that we see is government sponsored health care, I am referring to the VA. It is inefficient, consistently runs over budget and often times neglects the real needs of injured military personnel. The hospitals are typical dirty and understaffed and there have been a number of issues with misdiagnoses. All you need to know about how health care will be run by our government can be deduced through a study of the VA.

 

In cases of individuals born with lifelong genetic/chromosomal abnormalities, there could be a program put in place that will cover their care and medical costs that is taxpayer funded should they be unable to acquire private health insurance. With this program however, there should be a fee/premium charge to the family based upon said family's means.

 

Someone posted a question earlier, "how do you ensure that someone will get insurance in a purely private market?" This is the major problem with the line of thought of people who want nationalized health care. They feel that many things in life are an entitlement, that we should be able to take from those who have and redistribute it those who don't or in many cases are unwilling to sacrifice to have certain goods. This question could very well be asked this way, "how do you ensure that everyone will have a job in a private market?" After all, in many cases a job (income) is just as much of a necessity as is health insurance. So, why don't we start a program that ensures each individual a job, or if not a job, at least a living wage. Should we begin to mandate that all people in this country, whether working or not, are granted a standard minimum wage. Or, "how do you ensure, in a private market, that everyone will have a home?" Do we again, manufacture a program to ensure that all the people in the US have a house? What type of house must they have, is a 800 SF 2 BR apartment large enough for a family of 4 or should they receive a 4 BR 4 BA 2,200 SF home?

 

Yes, there are issues with health care costs in this country. There are also a number of issues with regard to how people spend their income. For instance, 21 to 28 year old individuals are largely uninsured, many of them have the means to provide insurance for themselves, but opt to purchase other items with their money. It is a philosophy that they are young and aren't necessarily in need of insurance because they are too young to get sick. Do we get to the point of dictating how people spend their income, no, it is a choice that the individual must make and poor decision making should have consequences, look at it a s a life lesson, or in some cases an end of life lesson.

 

One thing that has crossed my mind, in regard to subsidizing health care, would be to offer assistance where the government provides a portion of the premium for poorer families. Say that you have a family of 4 who has income below poverty level, both adults work (or at least the mom of the 3 kids works) 40 hours per week or more and they just can't get above that poverty threshold, subsidize their health insurance premium to a private insurer. Cut them a check, actually, cut their carrier a check, every month for the amount of the premium, or portion of the premium, ascribed for a person in their financial situation.

 

I'm sure this could have been much more eloquent, but I didn't feel like putting half a day into writing this.

 

Very well put.

[driveby]

To sum up;

 

We're going to wait longer, pay more and get less.

[Azazello1313]

Not a good sign, but not as dire as you make it sound.

 

Small businesses are the one's taking the brunt of this recession on the chin, and are being forced to cut costs in every area. Big companies that are still turning a massive profit are not in the position where they have to shave expenses at every turn, and thus will be much less likely to turn their healthcare coverage over to the state unless they are at a last-resort stage.

 

And when jobs do start to grow, and businesses want to hire the best talent they can, offering prvate health coverage (versus vanilla governement-sponsored plans) will again be a key benefit.

 

While its a path some are one, its over-exageratting to say that ithe gov't system is "the path we are ALL on".

 

I'm just looking a little further up the road than you are.

[caddyman]

I'm just looking a little further up the road than you are.

Liberals are still working on their excuse for why this will all occur. Give them time. They need an event to blame this on. It is too soon for them. Hell they just admitted that this is a tax. They were really hoping to not have to do that but, as usual they were busted in thier own web of lies.

[westvirginia]

Not a good sign, but not as dire as you make it sound.

 

Small businesses are the one's taking the brunt of this recession on the chin, and are being forced to cut costs in every area. Big companies that are still turning a massive profit are not in the position where they have to shave expenses at every turn, and thus will be much less likely to turn their healthcare coverage over to the state unless they are at a last-resort stage.

 

And when jobs do start to grow, and businesses want to hire the best talent they can, offering prvate health coverage (versus vanilla governement-sponsored plans) will again be a key benefit.

 

While its a path some are one, its over-exageratting to say that ithe gov't system is "the path we are ALL on".

 

How quickly we forget, or deliberately ignore because it disproves our desperate hopes.

[dmarc117]

public employees in illinois are covered by cigna. cigna is no longer paying claims, they are offering iou's.

[bushwacked]

How quickly we forget, or deliberately ignore because it disproves our desperate hopes.

 

So the mandated fines appear to be less than the costs of health care in the first place for these particular companies. Isn't the bigger issue that health care insurance for employees is not a sustainable path, due to rising costs, regardless?

 

Would you guys give Obama Credit for upping the fines, or is it just easier to bitch and moan about Socialism while losing the forest through the trees?

Edited July 20, 2010 by bushwacked

[SEC=UGA]

So the mandated fines appear to be less than the costs of health care in the first place for these particular companies. Isn't the bigger issue that health care insurance for employees is not a sustainable path, due to rising costs, regardless?

 

Would you guys give Obama Credit for upping the fines, or is it just easier to bitch and moan about Socialism while losing the forest through the trees?

 

The theory here seems to be, make it cheaper for companies to drop private coverage than to provide coverage. At that point we have a larger dependent pool on government insurance, we can then more easily nationalize health care as a large % of the people in this country are already on government run care. At that point we can then raise the tax on companies to pay for said national health care.

[westvirginia]

The theory here seems to be, make it cheaper for companies to drop private coverage than to provide coverage. At that point we have a larger dependent pool on government insurance, we can then more easily nationalize health care as a large % of the people in this country are already on government run care. At that point we can then raise the tax on companies to pay for said national health care.

 

Bingo. For all the crap perch took in this thread he was right. The folks in favor of this can't be truly this idiotic to believe this bill is going to cut costs and do all the things they've been saying. They want control of HC. They will start with the upcoming election and then continue for every election in the future, saying "Don't vote for anyone but democrats, we're the only ones who won't take away your health care." Just like they've been doing for 60 years with SS/medicare and the like.

 

They might think they HAVE to do this because they think it's in the countries best interest, but since the public doesn't want it, they can only get away with so much. But make no mistake, that is their end goal. In truth the heffalumps probably wouldn't mind it. They're just as power-hungry spend-thrift these days.