Newest Health Care Poll

[MaggieMae]

Exactaly..how dense are you?

If his payments wont work out to pay for a 100k procedure, how will paying nothing at all work out?

Should he get the care he needs if he can't afford it. Yes or no?

He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

What if he was hit by a bus and had to have a leg amputated, a prothesis, and weeks of rehabilitation?

 

[MaggieMae]

He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

Let me rephrase, since you like to weasel out of answering questions.

Should someone get the care that they need if they can't afford it? Yes or No

Since you like asking questions, let me put it to you this way. I pay for my bills and health care. Everyone should do the same. No one else is paying my way in life. No one else is affording me quality of life.

The answer is: There is not such thing as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

But for the Grace of God go you, then. I certainly hope you never find yourself without all the money you need for your splendidly perfect life.

 

[RDD_1210]

Should he get the care he needs if he can't afford it. Yes or no?

He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

What if he was hit by a bus and had to have a leg amputated, a prothesis, and weeks of rehabilitation?

Exactly. They refuse to answer this apparently "unrealistic" hypothetical question.

 

[MaggieMae]

LOL, ok if its so silly, then you tell me how a payment plan for a $100k bill would be structured.

Believe it or not it's like any other agreement. First everything is negotiable, your 100k is in all reality doesn't come close to the cost the dr's and the hosp will settle for never - mind once they know you're self insured you will be shocked at what does NOT need to be done.

The question was posed to someone willing and self insured, right? So why assume they can't afford the hefty payments. All in all it will be probably be less than or equal to having had insurance all along

If BF can afford a Cadillac health plan, then by all means he should go for it, or if he can pay unlimited amounts out of pocket, more power to him. Nobody's arguing that point (I don't think), because that doesn't describe most people.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sorry, i dont do trick questions with catches in the end answer. The only answer you will get is that there is no such thin as a free lunch. Someone always pays.

The answer to your question is that they get the care they need now just as they would under obamacare. On someone else's dime.

Again do you want to pay my medical expenses? I will be happy to send you the bill.

LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?

I so wish you hadn't used that word. With your attitude of what's mine is mine and screw everybody else is hardly the "Christian" way.

 

[syrenn]

He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

What if he was hit by a bus and had to have a leg amputated, a prothesis, and weeks of rehabilitation?

Exactly. They refuse to answer this apparently "unrealistic" hypothetical question.

Cant you read? I have answered that question many times.

First off you assume that he will not be paying into your pet project considering everyone will be FORCED to pay into it. (then again you also feel that some dont need to pay now dont you)

Running on the assumption he is paying into your pet......whats the problem?

If he is not paying into your pet, then you should have no problem with him getting care....for free.

The bottom line is that he will get the care he needs and someone else will pay for it. Again...nothing changes.

Same game different shells.

 

[syrenn]

Should he get the care he needs if he can't afford it. Yes or no?

He is paying for the care he needs. What is the problem?

What if he was hit by a bus and had to have a leg amputated, a prothesis, and weeks of rehabilitation?

Again it will be the same thing as it is now. He will get the care he needs.

 

[MaggieMae]

What Constitutional authority does the federal government have to make insurance companies do any of those things?

If you were to ask Judge Vinson (the federal judge in Florida who ruled that the ACA is unconstitutional) that question he might quote from his ruling:

In light of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U.S. 533, 64 S. Ct. 1162, 88 L. Ed. 1440 (1944), the "end" of regulating the health care insurance industry (including preventing insurers from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions) is clearly "legitimate" and "within the scope of the constitution."​

Short answer is that no one disputes that the feds can regulate interstate commerce and that regulating the health insurance industry qualifies.

Isn't this one of the arguements? The administration says it does, but it certainly isn't cut and dry.

A person would have to go back in time and see why there is even a regulation on interstate commerce. It really did come down to each state taxing interstate commerce, which became a debacle and the feds solved it once and for all. But I certainly don't get it with insurance.

Because selling insurance is selling a commercial product.
com·mer·cial (k-mûrshl)
adj.
1.
a. Of or relating to commerce: a commercial loan; a commercial attaché.
b. Engaged in commerce: a commercial trucker.
c. Involved in work that is intended for the mass market: a commercial artist.
2. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry.
3. Having profit as a chief aim: a commercial book, not a scholarly tome.
4. Sponsored by an advertiser or supported by advertising: commercial television.

 

[syrenn]

LOL, trick questions. Please, you're pathetic that you refuse to answer EVERYTHING I ask. Simple Yes or No questions at that. I'm done with you.

That question is as trick of a loaded question as loaded trick questions comes. Sorry i don't play those kinds of games..

Especially since you display so clearly your christianity in how you use information as a form of attack. Sorry..loaded questions will get you shit.


Simple yes or no question...want me to send you my medical bills to pay for? see how that works?

I so wish you hadn't used that word. With your attitude of what's mine is mine and screw everybody else is hardly the "Christian" way.

The remark is for his avatar. A very good indication of what he thinks.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hah... nice. The asshole who wants people dependent on government and grateful to him for putting them there.

Nice way to lie about me though. You're a real class(less) act. Thanks for illustrating your wisdom, sanity and tolerance for those poorer than you, dick.

Maybe someday your dream will come true and you can have me shot for not being a grateful slave to your party.

I'm lying about you? Do you have health insurance?

I actually do care about those people less fortunate then me, hence why I want to see EVERYONE get access to healthcare regardless of their income. Is that what you want?

I have to agree with Syrenn. The problem that comes with a system that covers everyone and all pre-existing conditions is COST. Sure this "illusion" of such a new Health Care coverage sounds nice, but when you include the "reality" of cost, it's unsustainable. Massachusetts went with such a system, and now they are fighting a drastic cost increase of 52%, ER costs that went up by 17%, increased waiting times in the ER due to overcrowding, and less quality of care. Just as Massachusetts has already proven, this Health Care bill will NOT reduce cost. However "cost" is just one part of the many issues facing a government controlled Health Care, another big issue is addressed in the article below.

Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment

Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb

In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
New York Times: By KEVIN SACK


AMHERST, Mass. — Once they discover that she is Dr. Kate, the supplicants line up to approach at dinner parties and ballet recitals. Surely, they suggest to Dr. Katherine J. Atkinson, a family physician here, she might find a way to move them up her lengthy waiting list for new patients.

Those fortunate enough to make it soon learn they face another long wait: Dr. Atkinson’s next opening for a physical is not until early May — of 2009.

This article was Published: April 5, 2008

The shortage of doctors is indeed a concern. There are new education incentives in place for students who want to pursue a career in health care but heretofore have been unable to pay THOSE costs. Also, a lot of new grads find it will be more lucrative to pursue a specialty, instead of going into general practice along with that specialty. Still others are finding it SUPER lucrative to become consultants.

 

[MaggieMae]

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

What part of the far left are still refusing to see that this bill is not wanted by the American people? Why are we letting the extreme far left (about 8%) in this country, control us?
How about setting politics aside and using common sense?
This is another big government program and eventually all big government programs cost us all way to much money.
How about reforming the system, instead of a new government program? Things that we can all agree on, like no more pre existing conditions, keeping what you have when you lose your job, torte reform, children stay on their parents health care as long as they are in college? Not a set age limit. Pooling insurances together?
Huh? How about it people?

The Rasmussen Problem

Rasmussen's role in the public debate is problematic for several reasons. It's not altogether clear what causes him to consistently project results so much at odds with those of the rest of the polling community. But if there is something problematic about his methods, he has little incentive to correct it, because Rasmussen's business model increasingly relies upon maintaining the loyalty of staunch Republicans.

The problem with this argument, is the inability to provide any poll data that shows and overwhelming SUPPORT for this New Health Care Bill.

CNN POLL:
CNN poll: Half favor repealing health care law – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
A Quinnipiac University national poll that was also released Tuesday offered similar results. According to the survey, Americans by a 48 to 43 percent margin want Congress to repeal the health care reform.

People over the age of 50 favor repeal by a 57 to 37 percent margin. But those under the age of 50 are split.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, with 44% who Strongly Favor it. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed to repeal, including 26% who Strongly Oppose.

I posted this link, which keeps up with and reports on ALL the polls, and as you can see, the country is evenly split, and also includes a whole lot of "undecideds" which also have to be considered with regard to popularity.

Health Policy

 

[MaggieMae]

You're purposefully not answering the question because you're too stubborn to admit that you wouldn't be able to pay that kind of bill and have no answers as to what you would do

All this from not playing with hypotheticals. Since I don't NEED to see my options for paying off 100k, I am not going to RESEARCH my options. If you want to find out how it works, call your own local hospital and be your own research monkey, bitch.

Until you answer this VERY real world example,

Since I don't owe anyone 100k, it very well cannot BE a 'real world example'. Of course I'm not surprised you don't get the concept of "real world".



Who died and appointed you the god of healthcare Real Dumbass DICK??? Your real example doesn't exist. You're so focused on a fake scenario you are ignoring the basic fact that I am not impacting your costs one red cent because it fucks your entire argument off the map! How is it, that me paying my REAL bills out of my own pocket, myself is a threat to your costs? Prove that shit.

You need to think about real world application of your ideas.

You mean like admitting this?

Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system.

You fully admit your concept is a FAILURE and yet you harp on oblivious to your own failed philosophy. Life must suck that you have to edit your hypocrisy and insanity on the fly. Must make it very hard to get through the day RealDumbassDICK.

Now, if you are done having a case of logical Tourette's the adults here have matters to discuss.

Why is it the filthy rich (I assume you're one) are also such classless jackasses that they have to resort to fratboy namecalling?

 

[MaggieMae]

And RealDumbassDick disappears in a puff of logic.

OH NO!!!! I see you typing with face again!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

So those who don't have the money and no way of making payments, should receive no care?

No, they will continue to receive care at hospital emergency rooms, which drives up the cost for those who CAN pay, and then they complain about how much their insurance premiums continue to go up, and 'round and 'round it goes. The ol' status quo.

Maybe you can explain this concept to them. I've tried but it's like talking to a brick wall.

No explanation will do for people like Syrenn, Big Fitz and several others who post on USMB. They're from that mindset that they're shocked that there even exists Americans who can't afford everything they themselves enjoy, and if they can't, well dogummit, they can just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or get stomped by somebody else's boots. Do they care? No. These are people who have no conscience, and it isn't restricted to just health care.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, they will continue to receive care at hospital emergency rooms, which drives up the cost for those who CAN pay, and then they complain about how much their insurance premiums continue to go up, and 'round and 'round it goes. The ol' status quo.

Maybe you can explain this concept to them. I've tried but it's like talking to a brick wall.

No explanation will do for people like Syrenn, Big Fitz and several others who post on USMB. They're from that mindset that they're shocked that there even exists Americans who can't afford everything they themselves enjoy, and if they can't, well dogummit, they can just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or get stomped by somebody else's boots. Do they care? No. These are people who have no conscience, and it isn't restricted to just health care.

Except Big Fitz has told us in another thread that he can't afford health insurance. He's a part of the problem in this country and refuses to recognize it. Shame.

 

[MaggieMae]

Bingo...there is no difference. There is NO difference between obamacare and what we have now.

So as i have said before and you don't seem to understand

Same shell game, just different shells.


Follow the money and get off of the soap box.

The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool (with set coverage for all), that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it.

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

 

[RDD_1210]

The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool (with set coverage for all), that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it.

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

Cost sharing credits available to individuals/families with income between 133-400% of the federal poverty level (the poverty level is $18,310 for a family of three in 2009)

 

[syrenn]

The biggest difference is insurers will now have strong competition because of the insurance exchanges (pools). For example: Let's say some local small law firms can't afford big insurance premiums for their employees. Then currently are able to look for insurers who offer a pool (with set coverage for all), that incorporates several law firms under one umbrella, and thus reduces the premium. Employees can opt out of participation and either go without or buy their own insurance if they don't think they would get adequate coverage offered by a pooled insurance policy. The problem with the way current insurers use pool policies is that they require X-number of employee participation, or else they decline to do the coverage. Under the new health care plan, ALL health insurers who want to compete for employees (or even individuals) will have to join the exchange where they will meet with all kinds of price competition for coverage offered. What's wrong with that? Isn't basic capitalism based on competition?

There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it.

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

Some out of pocket should be required from everyone who participate in the program. THAT is my point, no one should be exempt from payment.

 

[MaggieMae]

Maybe you can explain this concept to them. I've tried but it's like talking to a brick wall.

No explanation will do for people like Syrenn, Big Fitz and several others who post on USMB. They're from that mindset that they're shocked that there even exists Americans who can't afford everything they themselves enjoy, and if they can't, well dogummit, they can just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps or get stomped by somebody else's boots. Do they care? No. These are people who have no conscience, and it isn't restricted to just health care.

Except Big Fitz has told us in another thread that he can't afford health insurance. He's a part of the problem in this country and refuses to recognize it. Shame.

Well I'm getting the impression in this thread that he can afford anything he wants. He can also opt out of joining an exchange by choosing a Cadillac plan and paying for it himself. There is the provision, however, that he would have to start paying a tax on certain coverage amounts by 2018, which I'm sure he won't like. That's also a provision that I think will probably get struck down, however.

 

[MaggieMae]

There is nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone in the pool who wants care is PAYING for it.

How hard is for you to understand the concept of payment.

Then I don't understand your confusion. Their premiums will be much, much lower than if they had to buy insurance on their own. Some people WILL be income-eligible to pay nothing for the coverage, but I'd have to look it up to see what the cutoff is. It's higher than Medicaid, though. The program was never intended, and is not, "free" to all participants. Some out of pocket will be required.

Some out of pocket should be required from everyone who participate in the program. THAT is my point, no one should be exempt from payment.

So how do you treat someone who lost her job, has to raise her three kids alone, lost her home to foreclosure, is now feeding her kids on food stamps and is camped out in somebody else's spare room? Send her a bill to throw in the hat with all the other bills she's unable to pay?