XXXXXX

Forum Posts	Following	Followers
857	3	2

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

Folks without insurance can't sue anyone anyway. They do not have insurance.
duxup

True. But as of now the hospitals usually care for them anyway and past the cost on to the insured. Whats going to happen when the people with the money run out of it?

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Medicare is already having problems. And treatments are denied under Medicare but by all means.....give everyone in the country that headache.:|
Ontain

Medicare has problems because it insures a much high percent of those that aren't going to be paying. if it was to everyone then you'd have a lot of health ppl paying (like the insurance companies do now). also Medicare has a higher level of satisfaction compared to private insurance holders as well as using less of it's money on non healthcare related costs (pay for execs, legal, stockholders, etc).

as for treatment denied. depends on the case. just like with private but private is worse since there is a profit in denying rather than just budget.

I disagree. with private insurance you can fight for the treatment to be covered. maybe even sue. do you think under the Govt. run option is going to let you do any of those things.

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="duxup"]I guess I'm assuming you live in the US and pay taxes. If you do, yeah you're paying for other people's emergency room visits and the individual educational benefits I listed, amongst other things. duxup

I'm not talking about welfare programs already in place. I think many should be cut actually. I'm talking the increased cost.

Is that because your argument that this benefit is somehow different than others just doesn't hold up now? I think cost is a valid concern. However, I would argue that should be applied to existing and new benefits provided by the government equally. It is not as if all benefits provided up until now were somehow paid for and we just now crossed the "can't afford it" threshold. They haven't been for some time. Personally I have no problem with a national health care program provided the taxes are gathered to pay for it. Same goes with every other program, social, infrastructure, military.

A lot of the overall inflation of health costs is being filtered down by the uninsured ER visits and treatments, but the other part is the "discounted" cost from Medicare and other State (aka government) programs are being pushed down to the individuals that carry healthcare coverage.

Two things: Obama is full of it if he thinks they are going to be able to negotiate costs down in a new system and we truely need personal responsiblity and education to take effect to reduce the cost of health insurance. There is a reason cosmetic surgery has increase 600% in the last 10 years, but the cost for it has decreased overall. Its paid out of pocket. Same thing with laser eye surgery. competetion.

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a solution. If you already have health insurance you are exempt from the increased tax. If you don't have the insurance then you pay the tax. That's fair.....Darthmatt

And that is what is in the house bill.

Isn't there a clause in the bill that says if your employer already covers your healthcare, they cannot drop it for the public option?

I haven't seen it or heard about it, it seems to be an assumption people are taking. Pres. Obama keeps saying your going to have the choice for you to keep your current employee plan, but if I was an employer i would drop my plan like a hot potato as soon as I could.

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="Ontain"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And public schools illustrate quite well that government is not equipped to be involved in social programs. As do other programs.LJS9502_basic

I don't blame the schools. i blame the parents and the fact that we're now at a time where most families need 2 wage earners to have a home and live well. this leads to less parental involvement and thus more problem kids. we've tried to solve the problem in the US with more money but that's not the answer. ppl just don't want to take responsibility for their own kids. heck most kids don't even understand the importance of an education. you see the children of immigrant working much harder in schools because they do understand.

I don't think the fact that we lag behind other countries can solely be blamed on parenting.:|

I think Parent involvement is a huge part of the education problem in the U.S. If you take the Chicago area schools statistic that over 80% recv breakfast and lunch from government funded programs. Parents aren't stepping up to the plate. They think the Government should provide food for their children.

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]why would you want two failing over-expensive programs?....Kid-Icarus-

Because the alternative is so much worse? Because no matter how expensive or how badly performing a public health care system might be it is still better than leaving 20% of your citizens without any access to proper health care at all. Because it is immoral to refuse someone suffering from cancer access to drugs and therapy which might save their life, simply because they could not afford health insurance.

Your (highlighted) statement would actually pit you against a socialist medicine plan.

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 fillini

Member since 2004 • 857 Posts

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Locke562"] How Public or accessible the care is is a standard. It's a standard because every other first world country has some sort of public health care system.
SamusFreak

Sure, but the ranking doesn't necessarily tell the story of U.S. health care. Most Americans have health insurance, and the quality of care in the U.S. is pretty first rate.

over 40 million don't. and several million more either have huge loans from paying for it and have other financial problems, or suffer without it to avoid teh bills. first rate? not quite. again 37th on the WHO rateing, and the countries above us( with socialized healthcare) have better stats and such, like higher life expectancy.

Your 40million number is a Joke. nearly 12 million are illegal and nearly 15 million qualify for medicaide already and don't signup for it, the other 13 to 20 million make over 50k a year. and half those make 75k+ a year.

So who is actually uninsured?

15 years ago

fillini

Follow

857

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

2

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0