Another question for Government Run Healthcare Supporters...

[KMAN]

Well, since I only got 2 responses to my last question from Government run health care supporters let me try another question...

If 2 people were in line to get a liver transplant, one is here legally and has a job paying taxes toward health care costs and the other one is here illegally and does not work... providing that both are a good match for the liver, who should get the liver?

 

[Darkwind]

Well, since I only got 2 responses to my last question from Government run health care supporters let me try another question...

If 2 people were in line to get a liver transplant, one is here legally and has a job paying taxes toward health care costs and the other one is here illegally and does not work... providing that both are a good match for the liver, who should get the liver?

In all such ties, the liver will be served with onions.

I'm sure that it is in the healthcare bill that has just passed along with three or four recipes.

 

[KMAN]

Hello????

Where did all of the Government run health care supporters on this board go???

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Hello????

Where did all of the Government run health care supporters on this board go???

Perhaps no one here supports govt. run healthcare or perhaps they just can't wage an argument on it's behalf.

 

[editec]

Well, since I only got 2 responses to my last question from Government run health care supporters let me try another question...

If 2 people were in line to get a liver transplant, one is here legally and has a job paying taxes toward health care costs and the other one is here illegally and does not work... providing that both are a good match for the liver, who should get the liver?

I'll tell you how the market answers the question:

Who's got the best health insurance plan to pay for it?​

Given that one of the people has a job and possibly health care insurance, and the other doesn't, I suspect the woking stiff probably gets it.

 

[Newby]

Well, since I only got 2 responses to my last question from Government run health care supporters let me try another question...

If 2 people were in line to get a liver transplant, one is here legally and has a job paying taxes toward health care costs and the other one is here illegally and does not work... providing that both are a good match for the liver, who should get the liver?

I'll tell you how the market answers the question:

Who's got the best health insurance plan to pay for it?​

Given that one of the people has a job and possibly health care insurance, and the other doesn't, I suspect the woking stiff probably gets it.

Not true in the slightest.

The question would be whether or not the illegal immigrant even gets on the donor list to begin with.

 

[GHook93]

I look at healthcare in America and I can't agree with the pundits on the radio that its the best in the world or that we would wreck something.

Point 1: Pundit state that government will ration healthcare! What do you think the private insurance industry does now?

They cut out things such as speech therapy for a child that is having trouble talking and many other very needed conditions. They cut out pre-existing condition. You know the illnesses that you actually need covered and treatment for. They tell you to suck it. Believe it or not the private insurance industry refuses controversial or experimental treatments and DRUGS (a huge pundit sticking point). So what is their point? I don't get it. If you have cancer and want to get better insurance, guess what your fucked, hell more than likely your current insurance increase the premiums so high you can't afford it or they drop you altogether! The private insurance rations healthcare just the same. Anyone had to deal with an HMO, they ration healthcare in a reckless manner, I honestly can't see a government system worst then them (and I hate government running anything). HMO give a person nothing that they need.

Also take a look at your group healthcare plan, they cut out a lot of things that a person might need in unforeseeable situations? Is that not rationing healthcare?

Point 2: The pundit talk about long lines?

Why would the line be longer one might ask? Because more people would actually get the treatment they need. They wouldn't be cut out by the HMO or because they are uninsured or under-insured. They wouldn't be cut out by the preexisting condition riders. They wouldn't be cut out because they are no insurance. They wouldn't be cut out because their PPO plan arbitrary deletes that type of treatment. The lines are longer because more people are getting treated!

Point 3: More people would be flocking to the doctors office?

Who are you crappin? I might go get that triple bypass because it sounds fun. I might get the anal probe because its a blast! Come on 95% of Americans hate, HATE going to the doctor. That won't change because of UHC.

Point 4: It doesn't put our business at a disadvantage?

Who you crappin? Health benefits are a huge expense for our corporations and it does indeed put them at a disadvantage to foreign corps in UHC countries. Not to mention its so expensive for the small business that they to are at a GIGANTIC disadvantage to mid and large corps and not to mention Mexico and Canada. Its a huge burden to starting a small business!

Point 5: Pundits argue that doctors need to see a big payday in order to take on the expense of med school.

I think this is a rational fear. Lets be honest many doctors go into the field because they like helping people, but MOST want to make the big buck! Here is the pundit argument, the government will dictate what doctors can make so they will make nothing. Earth to pundit, the insurance companies right NOW dictate what a doctor can make and only pay them WHAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY BELIEVES THEY SHOULD MAKE! Amazing that the pundits ignore this. Every doctor in America has to deal with rabid bills not getting paid. How do I know? I work with a lot of collection agencies and they are all going after a ton of medical debt and always have. You don't think these unpaid bills get adds to the cost of the payor! I mean if Jose or Billy-Joe comes into your office without insurance get treatment and then never pays, that cost is a huge loss a doctor or say they have insurance but skip out on their 20% co-payment. Is this not a loss to the doctor? I think most doctors would feel much more confortable knowing that 100% of the bills will be paid without much issue for them! In fact all hospitals have expensive (but under-qualified) internal collections (again I know this because I work with a bunch). UHC cuts that expense out! And who says they will definitely make less. I think doctors might make more: (1) have more business, (2) do not have to account for any bills not being paid and (3) more protections from the government!

With med school costs? I think that goes back tot he general problem with unsustainable college costs! Another issue entirely. People don't take this into account much, but the student loan bubble burst was 1000x worse than the mortgage bubble! Trying getting a private student loan, sorry Charley they don't exist anymore and are probably not comeback. FAFSA loans cover I believe 70% of the tuition costs (the other 30%, room and board go out the window). I know Obama talked about forgiveness of loans if a doctor does some crap jobs like work in inner cities or other BS, but if its anything like forgiveness for law school loans (10 yrs of straight employment in low paying government jobs) then its toast!

Bottom line I don't see UHC reducing the number of med school applicants,in fact see it increasing it!

Point 6: The pundit ignore that many of the uninsured become uninsured when they are at their lowest point, they lost a job and COBRA is insane, or they get sick and the premiums increase to unsustainable levels!

You lose a job, meaning you lost your income, everything is tight at that point. COBRA is insanely expensive, much more than what the unemployed can afford. These people become vulnerable! Many people become unemployed because of an illness or injury not sustained on the job! I guess fuck them, since a sick or injured person is not contributing to society anymore! Does that make any sense?

Point 7: Republicans constantly argue that their healthcare proposals knock out insurance on pre-existing conditions?

Sorry if I call BULL SHIT on this one, because you had the house, senate, Presidency and Supreme Court for 6 long years, and P.E. were a HUGE issue then also and nothing got passed knocking them out!

Point 8: Pundit there are 45 million uninsured by 200 million people happy with their insurance?

Who you crappin? Anyone who has a HMO hates their insurance. I have rarely heard anyone who actually had to use their insurance state they like in. In fact the 45 mil uninsured is a misleading number. 45 mil uninsured and probably another 150 mil under-insured. another 50 mil unhappily insured!

Point 9: Pundits ignore the fact that medical bills still remains one of the leading causes of bankruptcy (and before the bubble bursting and the recession it used to be #1)!

Again pundits who are you crappin! Sorry, but no system can claim to be anywhere near the best if its a leading cause of BK!

Point 10: Pundits argue about the unhappy Englishman and Canuk? That they are flocking here to get medical care?

Again who are you crappin? I rarely hear about either complaining except from the angry RICH pundits like Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly! What about the people that actually go south of the border to get treatment and even to Cuba (amazing that people are going there now after seeing Sicko)! I read about this in times, its shocking!

Point 11: The Pundits always argue about vested interests of the Democrats in doing this to secure the poor vote and middle-class vote, however, they ignore their own vested interest?

O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, Beck etc are all millionaires (I don't fault them for this in the least) and none are business owners, paying their health insurance is no big deal for them, paying their copay is no big deal, if they ever needed COBRA again no big deal, if they went unemployed for even a decade again no big deal. Paying for something out of pocket that their insurance denies or is out of pay is no big deal to them. But what is a big deal to them is a tax increase, which every Democratic plan calls for on people making what they make, there is their vested interest

If they argue its to secure the middle class vote because it will make the middle class happy is wrong? I don't really get it!

Point 12: The Pundits ignore that a person can't choose not to pay for many medical expense as they can for goods and services!

You break you leg you can't say fuck it I'll pass. You can do that with TV. You get hit by a car, you can't say fuck it will walk it off! You can say that with a new sports car! 9 times out of 10 you can't forgo a procedure, medical care, a trip to the emergency room etc. Its a different animal and needs to be treated as such.

Point 13: Its not in the constitions and the forefathers would have never contemplated it?

First, what a weak argument!
Second, back in the days of our forefathers healthcare wasn't an issue because (1) it costed next to nothing, (2) it was barbaric, (3) most people had to treat themselves anyways and (4) the drug expenses weren't what they were like now. If a person can't recognize that healthcare has change enormously back from then, they are well STUPID (yep Kevin I am talking to you)!

Third, the constitution didn't include many things that we take for granted, the Federal courts hearing federal question cases, the right to privacy or criminal law (such as not allowing murder or theft), abolishing slavery (the 13th amendment didn't get enacted to well after all the founding fathers were dead)! These people don't understand the power and place of the interstate commerce clause.

 

[GHook93]

Hello????

Where did all of the Government run health care supporters on this board go???

See below I try to stay in the middle, but its hard to support a HMO system that controls everything.

I am sick (no pun intended) and tired of hearing it be called the private market system, because insurance companies act like de facto dictatorships. I have no choice in my healthcare, I have to go with who my employer picks. My doctor has no choice in what he will charge, he has to go off what my INSURANCE COMPANY says he can charge. I have no say for the most part in what treatment I can take if its no covered in my plan. And if I had a HMO (which thank god I don't, but the majority of Americans have), I have no choice in my treatment and for the most part my doctor, my HMO dictates who I can see and for what (most of the time its for arbitrary reasons based solely on cost, isn't that what Republicans Pundits cry about with UHC!)

 

[Big Black Dog]

In all such ties, the liver will be served with onions.

I'm sure that it is in the healthcare bill that has just passed along with three or four recipes.

Although this is a great answer I would have to say the best solution would be to cut the liver in half and give each a bit of the organ... The biggest half going to the illegal alien so we could prove that all are welcome here in America, legal or otherwise, but only if you promise to vote Democratic.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Well, since I only got 2 responses to my last question from Government run health care supporters let me try another question...

That's probably because Obamacare isn't government run health care. Not anymore than the health care options Exxon offers its employees is "Exxon run", or Wal-Mart offers its employees "Wal-Mart run" health care. Each of these companies offers their employees the opportunity to buy into health care plans, but the companies don't run the plans, the insurance companies do.

When I worked for the navy (civilian employee) I had health care through the government. I was offered quite a variety of different plans from different insurance companies to pick from. Most employers only offer insurance from a single company to their employees. The gubment had many. I chose Blue Cross.

 

[Newby]

Who's running it then?

 

[KMAN]

Recap... after 1 day... we have 2 answers... serve it with onions, and cut it in half...

I think lonestar was right... There is no support for government run health care on this board... I know there are liberals on this board so I guess it's safe to say that Obama is not listening to the voters and is forcing something that nobody wants... Interesting.

 

[L.K.Eder]

In all such ties, the liver will be served with onions.

I'm sure that it is in the healthcare bill that has just passed along with three or four recipes.

Although this is a great answer I would have to say the best solution would be to cut the liver in half and give each a bit of the organ... The biggest half going to the illegal alien so we could prove that all are welcome here in America, legal or otherwise, but only if you promise to vote Democratic.

liver splitting is done routinely.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Who's running it then?

The government. And whoever says different is overdosing on the kool-aid.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who's running it then?

You can find the details on the health care offered to government employees here:
OPM-Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan Home Page

 

[Newby]

Who's running it then?

The government. And whoever says different is overdosing on the kool-aid.

I know, I just wanted to see who exactly he thought was going to run it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

There is no support for government run health care on this board... .

Nor is there in Congress. I don't see why you're arguing about something pretty much no one wants.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Who's running it then?

The government. And whoever says different is overdosing on the kool-aid.

I know, I just wanted to see who exactly he thought was going to run it?

To all:

here's a list of what insurance options are presently available to government employees - by state:


Insurance Programs


If the option of this plan is given to all, no doubt more insurance companies will want to be on the government's list of options and there will be even more to choose from.


Federal government employees presently have far more flexibility in choosing health care coverage than employees of most other companies.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Who's running it then?

The government. And whoever says different is overdosing on the kool-aid.

I know, I just wanted to see who exactly he thought was going to run it?

I suspect spiderman tuba is a troll and you probably won't get an answer. But I could be mistaken.

 

[Newby]

The government. And whoever says different is overdosing on the kool-aid.

I know, I just wanted to see who exactly he thought was going to run it?

To all:

here's a list of what insurance options are presently available to government employees - by state:


Insurance Programs


If the option of this plan is given to all, no doubt more insurance companies will want to be on the government's list of options and there will be even more to choose from.


Federal government employees presently have far more flexibility in choosing health care coverage than employees of most other companies.

What happens when there are no more insurers b/c the federal plan has undercut them all? From what I understand you are able to keep your current insurance until you change jobs, then you have no choice but to go to the government provided plan. What happens whenever employers no longer offer insurance whenever they know that everyone would be covered under the government plan? Are they going to compensate you whenever they cut your health insurance since it was supposedly part of your salary? An automatic raise whenever that happens? And lastly, something I've heard no mention of, how is this all getting paid for?