OK RWers, Lets Say They Scrap The Bill, Start Over If You Will...

[hboats]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Wow, two sentences and two fallacies. A record!
First, even if actual awards represent a small percentage, the threat of malpractice suits drives a lot of costs. No doctor ever got sued for ordering too many tests. And believe me, they think this way. The threat of suit pushes doctors to practice "defensive medicine" driving up costs.
Second, what do you mean "pocketed"?? Health care is a competitive business. The money doesnt just disappear into a dark hole. It is used to lower premiums in insurance companies, lower costs in care providers, pay out more to share holders, or anything else

Used to LOWER premiums!!!??? Are you fucking kidding!!!??? You know GAWD DAMN WELL that the ins cos are NOT lowering premiums!!!


Now as far as tort reform is concerned I think we NEED tort reform but you have to ask yourself what is your right leg worth to you? What is your left breast worth to you? What is the company of your husband/wife worth to you?

My left leg, or my right one, is not worth giving up freedom for. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail as well. I would rather give up both legs than to give up freedom.
Your emotional arguments are not as effective as you think, try something new.

So your leg gets lopped off and you would just say OH WELL no big deal!!!??? BULLSHIT!!! How about your spouse dies NEEDLESSLY, are you going to just say OH WELL no big deal!!!??? If you say YES you are LYING!!!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

 

[slackjawed]

Used to LOWER premiums!!!??? Are you fucking kidding!!!??? You know GAWD DAMN WELL that the ins cos are NOT lowering premiums!!!


Now as far as tort reform is concerned I think we NEED tort reform but you have to ask yourself what is your right leg worth to you? What is your left breast worth to you? What is the company of your husband/wife worth to you?

My left leg, or my right one, is not worth giving up freedom for. Freedom to succeed, freedom to fail as well. I would rather give up both legs than to give up freedom.
Your emotional arguments are not as effective as you think, try something new.

So your leg gets lopped off and you would just say OH WELL no big deal!!!??? BULLSHIT!!! How about your spouse dies NEEDLESSLY, are you going to just say OH WELL no big deal!!!??? If you say YES you are LYING!!!

I never said those things are not big deals. i said i simply do not wish to give up my freedoms and allow the federal government to have that much power.
take a reading class, because it is clear that your reading comprehension is poor.
And once again, your emotional arguments simply are not as effective as you think they are.

 

[Some Guy]

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

What are the dems proposing as part of this bill that actually targets the cost to provide health care?

Hint: "cost" and "price" are not the same thing.

 

[hboats]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

Thanks for taking the time to disprove it. Please show me what is crap and maybe I'll be as enlightened as you. Thanks.

Rick

 

[slackjawed]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.[/QUOTE]

No, the really sad thing is that about 21% of of the American people choose to enage in these emotuional arguments to sacrifice freedom.
Luckily there are only about 21% of the country that are leftwing partisan nutjobs......

The other really sad thing is that the media has not been questioned by the 21%er's, unless they were casting dispersions on the chosen one.
No the sad fact is that 21% believe the bullshit.

 

[hboats]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

Thanks for taking the time to disprove it. Please show me what is crap and maybe I'll be as enlightened as you. Thanks.

Rick

Here, let me get you started.

What part of proposing a $5,000/year fine for anyone who elects not to have medical insurance is not forcing the population to do something that apparently not everyone wants to do?

Rick

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The major difference between the two sides of this argument come down to this in my eyes:

Democrats want to force everyone to get coverage and make the people who have coverage currently pay for the rest of the country to get coverage.

Republicans want to focus on the cost of medical care and ATTEMPT to reduce it to make it easier for everyone to be able to afford coverage.

Now, I know these aren't the only differences, but they are the major factors that separate the two sides.

Rick

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

Thanks for taking the time to disprove it. Please show me what is crap and maybe I'll be as enlightened as you. Thanks.

Rick

I don't have to DISprove ANYTHING because you have proven NOTHING.

 

[slackjawed]

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

Thanks for taking the time to disprove it. Please show me what is crap and maybe I'll be as enlightened as you. Thanks.

Rick

I don't have to DISprove ANYTHING because you have proven NOTHING.

and oddly, your emotion based arguments have also proven nothing.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

What are the dems proposing as part of this bill that actually targets the cost to provide health care?

Hint: "cost" and "price" are not the same thing.

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Thanks for taking the time to disprove it. Please show me what is crap and maybe I'll be as enlightened as you. Thanks.

Rick

I don't have to DISprove ANYTHING because you have proven NOTHING.

and oddly, your emotion based arguments have also proven nothing.

Hey SJ all I asked was for you to tell us WHAT YOUR LEG is worth to you.

 

[slackjawed]

I don't have to DISprove ANYTHING because you have proven NOTHING.

and oddly, your emotion based arguments have also proven nothing.

Hey SJ all I asked was for you to tell us WHAT YOUR LEG is worth to you.

and if you read my post where i answered you, you would find i told you I would rather give up both legs rather than my freedom............

 

[slackjawed]

The sad thing is you TRUELY believe that crap.

What are the dems proposing as part of this bill that actually targets the cost to provide health care?

Hint: "cost" and "price" are not the same thing.

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

Now where in the constitution, the federalist papers, the bill of rights, or any other of our great documents, is there justification for the federal government addressing any of those things?

 

[FireGod]

What are the dems proposing as part of this bill that actually targets the cost to provide health care?

Hint: "cost" and "price" are not the same thing.

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

Now where in the constitution, the federalist papers, the bill of rights, or any other of our great documents, is there justification for the federal government addressing any of those things?

OK fine who's job is it?
Consumers? Logic that one out please.
Health insurance industry itself? Logic that one please.
Take the government out those are the two options left right? So how are any changes going to happen? Oh wait there is no need for change right because all is well and dandy?

 

[slackjawed]

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

Now where in the constitution, the federalist papers, the bill of rights, or any other of our great documents, is there justification for the federal government addressing any of those things?

OK fine who's job is it?
Consumers? Logic that one out please.
Health insurance industry itself? Logic that one please.
Take the government out those are the two options left right? So how are any changes going to happen? Oh wait there is no need for change right because all is well and dandy?

I will agree that government oversight of the insurance industry needs improvement. To date, the government has institutionalized insurance fraud in the medicare and medicaid programs..

But where in your post did you offer constitutional support for federal control of Healthcare.
All you offered were more emotion based arguments.
I, as an American citizen, deserve the right to have to opportunity to succeed. Likewise, i deserve the right to have the opportunity to fail. Without failure, there can be no success.
the idea that if you "logic out" the answers to your questions is simply another emotion based argument that stands against freedom and the intent of the constitution.
I demand the right to succeed, and the right to fail. It was promised to all of us US citizens in our founding documents.

 

[Vanquish]

slackjawed, your comment that it's not in the constitution is a) wrong and b) was proven disingenuous by Obama...when he bitchslapped Cantor.

Is the FDA in the constitution? Not by name. (there's authority for it though - it's called "General Welfare" - a discussion of enumerated powers comes next to fully discuss this.)

Sufficed to say even Republicans agree that agencies not specifically named in the constitution are needed - hell even they even get regulatory and administrative law making powers.

 

[Some Guy]

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

I'd really question the ability to get yearly physicals leading to healthier lifestyles. For one, i'm insured and i've had one physical in about the last 10 years. Why bother if i feel fine? Maybe a little cavalier there but i already live a pretty healthy lifestyle. I could see instances where someone having insurance leads to an un-healthier lifestyle. If the coverage is there then why worry too much about blood pressure or cholesterol when the medication will be affordable?

So, i see your point, but you're making an awful lot of assumptions that people are going to do exactly what you expect them to do. I'm certainly not a fan of the subsidies that would follow a mandate like that, and it doesn't even address the constitutionality of imposing such a mandate.

 

[slackjawed]

slackjawed, your comment that it's not in the constitution is a) wrong and b) was proven disingenuous by Obama...when he bitchslapped Cantor.

Is the FDA in the constitution? Not by name. (there's authority for it though - it's called "General Welfare" - a discussion of enumerated powers comes next to fully discuss this.)

Sufficed to say even Republicans agree that agencies not specifically named in the constitution are needed - hell even they even get regulatory and administrative law making powers.

and even those items you mention are still debated ON PRINCIPLE to this day.
Therein lies the basic difference of opinion, how the constitution is interpeted.
I understand that, and i respect the difference of opinion based on the difference of opinion on how to interpet that document.Hell, that argument started with our founding fathers.
Thank you for that point, that is actually much more valid than the emotional arguments previously offered.
I agree to disagree on how the constitution is interpeted, and would defend your right to hold that opinion if need be. That is exactly what makes our country what it is. I applaud the point you make, pos rep for you from me for it.

 

[Oddball]

Well let's see, if you provide coverage for 30 million UNinsured then you will prevent MILLIONS of unneccesary ER visits and reduce costs GREATLY! We don't NEED or WANT people to have to wait until they are in CRITICAL condition to seek medical help DO we!!!??? Fewer ER visits mean fewer medical bankruptcies and FAR fewer $s writen off as uncollectable which means the cost of doing business for hospitals DROPS! If people can get yearly physicals then they will live HEALTHIER more productive lives. Healthy people have FEWER sick days thus improving productivity of businesses across the board!


So let's check these points.......

*Fewer DEATHS due to easily treatable conditions found early on.
*Lower cost for hospitals due to fewer UNPAID ER visits.
*Higher productivity due to FEWER sick days.
*Fewer medical BANKRUPTCIES due to early less expensive treatment.

Tell us how costs for everyone are cut by screening 100% of the population for the scant few percent of people who'd benefit from early detection?