Obama's Fascism

TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/health/policy/25health.html?_r=1&ref=health

Democrats in both houses of Congress want to require people to carry insurance.
Click to expand...
And who benefits?

Do people who don't need insurance, who can't afford it benefit?

No, the people that benefit are the Insurance Corporations that provided millions to Obama and their cronies in both houses.

Instead of freedom D.C. is on the verge of strong-arming the public for the benefit of several giant insurance providers. This is Fascism at its worse.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
That stinks. I don't care how "affordable" they try to make health coverage, I have ZERO dollars per month to spend on it. Whether it's mandatory or not doesn't change the fact that I still can't afford it. Zero dollars doesn't buy anything.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
doobnVA said:
That stinks. I don't care how "affordable" they try to make health coverage, I have ZERO dollars per month to spend on it. Whether it's mandatory or not doesn't change the fact that I still can't afford it. Zero dollars doesn't buy anything.
Click to expand...
That, and health insurance/coverage is not healthcare. Even if you are strong-armed into it, how would you pay the copays?

The problems with health insurance as a solution are manifold. Though the biggest one is that it does nothing about the shortage of physicians. The best way to resolve the issue of medical care being expensive is not to force people to have insurance (which doesn't actually do anything more than encourage those that are forced to have it, and can afford it to go to the doctor more often stretching limited resources further) but to train more doctors.

The government, per usual, is showing that it will do something that sounds "good" with out actually resolving the issue. They are going to force you to get health insurance (because those crooked insurance companies (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/business/25insure.html?ref=business) paid them (both Democrats and Republicans) millions in return for a promise to do this.)

The real solution is more doctors, and more competition, or letting the free market do what it does best, create alternatives. We can look at the establishment of clinics inside Walmart's and other providers searching for ways to provide care outside of hospitals (thus reducing costs) lowering costs. The free market sees the demand, and are trying to get around the bureaucratic red tape to fill it. Doctors, in general, just want to practice medicine, it is what they chose to do. For D.C. to increasingly add onerous restrictions and requirements does not resolve anything. except increasing the cost which once again screws over the poor and working classes.

While the free market does not have solutions to everything, it doesn't use legislative force for the benefit of private corporations (and their CEOs.)
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
TheBrutalTruth said:
That, and health insurance/coverage is not healthcare. Even if you are strong-armed into it, how would you pay the copays?

The problems with health insurance as a solution are manifold. Though the biggest one is that it does nothing about the shortage of physicians. The best way to resolve the issue of medical care being expensive is not to force people to have insurance (which doesn't actually do anything more than encourage those that are forced to have it, and can afford it to go to the doctor more often stretching limited resources further) but to train more doctors.

The government, per usual, is showing that it will do something that sounds "good" with out actually resolving the issue. They are going to force you to get health insurance (because those crooked insurance companies (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/business/25insure.html?ref=business) paid them (both Democrats and Republicans) millions in return for a promise to do this.)

The real solution is more doctors, and more competition, or letting the free market do what it does best, create alternatives. We can look at the establishment of clinics inside Walmart's and other providers searching for ways to provide care outside of hospitals (thus reducing costs) lowering costs. The free market sees the demand, and are trying to get around the bureaucratic red tape to fill it. Doctors, in general, just want to practice medicine, it is what they chose to do. For D.C. to increasingly add onerous restrictions and requirements does not resolve anything. except increasing the cost which once again screws over the poor and working classes.

While the free market does not have solutions to everything, it doesn't use legislative force for the benefit of private corporations (and their CEOs.)
Click to expand...
Uhhh, I guess you all missed the public option part of the discussion, Eh? I'm still not sure how it will work. My impression is that it will not be that public, in other words, you will still have to deal with the Insurance companies and profit. Untill they get profit out of medical, there will be no true public option. Did you notice the petrified look on that Insurance CEOs face when the Public option was brought up? He could see billions leaving the building, his mega-salary and bonuses going out the door. Single payer is the only answer. It would disolve all corporations and businesses of any responsibility for employees medical, insure all, and still leave the private for profit medical for idiots that want to pay big bucks for similar care. If a true public option was created, the Insurance companies and the ruthless HMOs would be a thing of the past. Doctors could get on with treating patients and not dealing with CEOs that want to deny medical procedures.
 
jfgordon1

jfgordon1

Well-Known Member
things such as this are making the rich, richer... and the poor.. poorer. They are slowly turning us into a 2nd world country
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
turd world you mean.
you should look at what is going on in news. chicago is having so much violence they are running out of blood
the food pantries cannot keep up with the increased demand. no end in sight for lay offs.
i wonder how long they are going to keep trying to blame bush when congress has been controlled by dems for going on three years now..and all they can do is call names.
they better be pulling some hard core solutions out of their ass's soon or they will have a huge blood bath on their hands.
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
jfgordon1 said:
things such as this are making the rich, richer... and the poor.. poorer. They are slowly turning us into a 2nd world country
Click to expand...
May I ask, things such as what Gordan, Single payer? Actually, single payer would be the largest boost the economy has ever seen. All businesses could concentrate on plant investment instead of medical costs. I have no Idea why corporations are so against single payer. The average cost of medical care in the USA is more than 5,000.per capita. That's 416.00 per month, But the per capita cost is erroneous as to what the average taxpayer pays per month. since there are 50 million uninsured and many more under insured, the average tax payer probably pays much more for their private incurance and co-pays. If they taxed the workers on a progressive scale for health care, I'm pretty sure the average would be much less than the real average per worker. I'll bet the average per worker tax burden for health care would be less than 200.00 per mo. if the scale was balanced out. for those making 100K plus, maybe 300.00. Once the profit is taken out of medical, it will soon become apparent just how much the Insurance industry is raping us now. So you see, Single payer is the answer. We can vote on public officials in charge of the medical system, try that with private industry, they just look at us and tell us take it or leave it while they cherry pick their customers. Don't have a pre-condition like Diabetes or you'll not get insured. Right now, I pay 300.00 + copays for my Teamster retirement Insurance, and another 125.00 for my scrips from the VA, and I have decent insurance, not top of the line, but adequate. With single payer, that would probably drop to about 250.00 or less total.
 
TheBrutalTruth

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
May I ask, things such as what Gordan, Single payer? Actually, single payer would be the largest boost the economy has ever seen. All businesses could concentrate on plant investment instead of medical costs. I have no Idea why corporations are so against single payer. The average cost of medical care in the USA is more than 5,000.per capita. That's 416.00 per month, But the per capita cost is erroneous as to what the average taxpayer pays per month. since there are 50 million uninsured and many more under insured, the average tax payer probably pays much more for their private incurance and co-pays. If they taxed the workers on a progressive scale for health care, I'm pretty sure the average would be much less than the real average per worker. I'll bet the average per worker tax burden for health care would be less than 200.00 per mo. if the scale was balanced out. for those making 100K plus, maybe 300.00. Once the profit is taken out of medical, it will soon become apparent just how much the Insurance industry is raping us now. So you see, Single payer is the answer. We can vote on public officials in charge of the medical system, try that with private industry, they just look at us and tell us take it or leave it while they cherry pick their customers. Don't have a pre-condition like Diabetes or you'll not get insured. Right now, I pay 300.00 + copays for my Teamster retirement Insurance, and another 125.00 for my scrips from the VA, and I have decent insurance, not top of the line, but adequate. With single payer, that would probably drop to about 250.00 or less total.
Click to expand...
Medomao, the problem is that THEY ARE GOING TO FORCE PEOPLE TO HAVE INSURANCE

Did you miss that little detail?

Are you still pretending that the giant Providers wouldn't get the government contracts for the Single Payer System?

Palmetto GBA - Owned by a Private For Profit Corporation major Medicaid/Medicare Operator on the East Coast.
Anthem - A private for profit corporation
BC/BS of Texas/New Mexico - Private corporation that probably pays their CEOs millions, and would definitely get the contracts in their area.
Medical Mutual of Ohio - another private, for profit corporation, that would probably get the contracts in Ohio (at least some) and other contracts through out the NE (Pennsylvania, Indiana, Michigan)

The only one's that lose out are the small insurers, which means even more lay offs, we're probably talking about another million jobs that would go up in smoke easily.

Probably a lot more than that.

All replaced with bottom-dwelling ass-leaching bureaucrats at probably 3 -4x the pay.

The poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class gets bent over and raped.
 
doobnVA

doobnVA

Well-Known Member
medicineman said:
Uhhh, I guess you all missed the public option part of the discussion, Eh? I'm still not sure how it will work. My impression is that it will not be that public, in other words, you will still have to deal with the Insurance companies and profit. Untill they get profit out of medical, there will be no true public option. Did you notice the petrified look on that Insurance CEOs face when the Public option was brought up? He could see billions leaving the building, his mega-salary and bonuses going out the door. Single payer is the only answer. It would disolve all corporations and businesses of any responsibility for employees medical, insure all, and still leave the private for profit medical for idiots that want to pay big bucks for similar care. If a true public option was created, the Insurance companies and the ruthless HMOs would be a thing of the past. Doctors could get on with treating patients and not dealing with CEOs that want to deny medical procedures.
Click to expand...
A public option doesn't necessarily equal a free (or even low cost) option. Just because they're throwing the term "public" out there, don't let it fool you into thinking they're talking about socialized medicine like they have in say, Canada or Sweden. We're talking government subsidized health insurance for the poor. You still have to pay for it, and it might not be that much cheaper than private coverage AND you'd have to qualify (be poor enough, according to someone's arbitrary standards).

So, in the long run, this "public" option probably won't do much to help the average family who is struggling to keep their family covered under an employer sponsored policy but makes too much to qualify for the subsidies.

Same old fuckin' bullshit politics. They spend all their time arguing with each other and very little time actually getting anything important done. Heard on the radio today that Congress actually took time in memory of Michael Jackson this morning. I mean, the guy was pretty famous and all but SERIOUSLY?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top