Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hell, you don't even deny it....
Mocking all sorts of idiots? Of course not.
No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life.
You mocked him for being poor.
And you should be ashamed.
And if you dont believe me...ask him.
Mocking all sorts of idiots? Of course not.
No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life.
You mocked him for being poor.
And you should be ashamed.
And if you dont believe me...ask him.
I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.
The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.
No..you specifically mocked BF about his not having insurance. You spacificaly mocked him for not making enough money in life to afford it. You called him a loser even though he IS paying his bills in payments. You mocked him for not being a drain on society. You mocked his situation in life.
You mocked him for being poor.
And you should be ashamed.
And if you dont believe me...ask him.
I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.
The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.
You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.
How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.
He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.
How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?
He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.
And you should be very ashamed.
I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.
The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.
You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.
How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.
He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.
How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?
He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.
And you should be very ashamed.
Well it's not my fault you fail to see the hypocrisy in his viewpoint. Nor is it my fault that you are too ashamed to just come out and say that people who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive it. But it's ok, I can read between the lines. Have a good weekend!
ShaklesOfBigGov said: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.
Ok, I'll answer you even though you didn't answer my question at all.
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare
Skyrocketing Massachusetts health costs could foreshadow high price of ObamaCare | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
By Aleksandra Kulczuga - The Daily Caller
Since the bill became law, the state’s total direct health-care spending has increased by a remarkable 52 percent. Medicaid spending has gone from less than $6 billion a year to more the $9 billion. Many consumers have seen double-digit percentage increases in their premiums.
Even more striking, the 2006 law has done little to ease the burden on emergency rooms, a central goal of all heath care reform plans. A report by the Boston Globe found that in the first two years of the program, the state’s ER costs actually rose by 17 percent. “They said that ER visits would drop by 75 percent, and it hasn’t been even close to that,” said State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who is currently running for governor as an Independent. “It hasn’t changed people’s habits. It hasn’t been successful at getting people to use less expensive alternatives.”
They don't have a great track record, I won't disagree with you. However, this legislation isn't about the government taking over. In fact all it is doing is setting guidelines for private insurance companies and providing more business for private insurance companies.You can start by addressing these questions:
1) WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?
2) How will you handle this drastic increase in COST that a government controlled Health Care System will bring? Pawning off "responsibility" as if it's an insignificant issue, is NOT the answer.
The cost will be accounted for in a variety of ways but one of the primary means of accounting for cost is the effective decrease it will have on the rates we will all pay over time due to less uninsured people using the healthcare system and not paying, since they will now be covered by health insurance as opposed to before.
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.
That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?
I was being sarcastic, illustrating a point that calling people who don't have insurance lazy and losers is wrong because he in fact fits the description of the very people he says are mooching off the system.
The fact that he doesn't see the irony in this makes him an idiot and why I mock him. NOT because he has no money. If I didn't care about the poor I wouldn't want my tax dollars go to subsidize their health care.
You were not being sarcastic...you were being a fucking ass hole dick and using information about his life's situation against him. Pathetic.
How can someone who is PAYING for their medical care fall into the lazy loser category? He does not fit EITHER category.
He is not mooching off of any system..and yet you mock him for being to poor to afford health insurgence. The very people you say you championing.
How is his willingness to pay his bills and NOT wanting others to pay for him make him an idiot?
He does not see any irony nor do i. What i do see you is mocking him for his situation in life in such an underhanded way that it is disgusting its pathetic.
And you should be very ashamed.
Well it's not my fault you fail to see the hypocrisy in his viewpoint. Nor is it my fault that you are too ashamed to just come out and say that people who can't afford healthcare shouldn't receive it. But it's ok, I can read between the lines. Have a good weekend!
ShaklesOfBigGov said:Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Merritt Hawkins & Associates, “2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times,” Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates
It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obama’s closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nation’s first “universal health plan” was spawned and has been in operation for three years.
Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.
The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.
The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,
Boston, 50 days
Philadelphia, 27 days
Los Angeles, 24 days
Houston, 23 days
Washington, D.C., 23 days
San Diego, 20 days
Minneapolis, 20 days
Dallas, 19 days
New York, 19 days
Denver, 15 days
Miami, 15 days
Portland, 14 days
Seattle, 14 days
Detroit, 12 days
Atlanta, 11 days
That's the problem with the left. They like to build this pretty picture of a Health Care System for all, to include pre-existing conditions. However, talk about the "REALITY" of cost, like the previous post about Massachusetts and the high rising cost of a government run system, and they completely avoid wanting to address THAT issue. It's built on the whole notion of "someone else will pay for it". Well that "someone else" HAS NOT reduced the cost of Health Care, it has only done the exact opposite. So when will MaggieMay and RDD address this issue of cost that Syrenn keeps addressing? RDD_1210 is especially good at dodging this point. Do you need a reminder of these issues? Talk about your rosy "illusion" of a perfect Health Care all you want, WHEN . . . has the government ever proven itself to be MORE fiscally responsible and very cost efficient?
I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.
You have addressed.. Hope and If. You have addressed pie in the sky. You have addressed nothing that is a sustainable system financially.
You have hopes for a sustainable system...If i works.
So long as there are people who do not pay into the system and expect care for nothing..it will never work.
Obamacare is the same game just different more expensive shells.
ShaklesOfBigGov said:Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Merritt Hawkins & Associates, 2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times, Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates
It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obamas closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nations first universal health plan was spawned and has been in operation for three years.
Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.
The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.
The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,
Boston, 50 days
Philadelphia, 27 days
Los Angeles, 24 days
Houston, 23 days
Washington, D.C., 23 days
San Diego, 20 days
Minneapolis, 20 days
Dallas, 19 days
New York, 19 days
Denver, 15 days
Miami, 15 days
Portland, 14 days
Seattle, 14 days
Detroit, 12 days
Atlanta, 11 days
Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)
Before we discuss this, let's see if we even need to have a discussion about this at all. Because if we disagree on the following question then there is no need to discuss any further.
If someone is completely broke and has no way of paying at all, should they still be able to receive care? Yes or no?
Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?
I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.
I've discussed how cost is addressed numerous times. Learn to read.
You have addressed.. Hope and If. You have addressed pie in the sky. You have addressed nothing that is a sustainable system financially.
You have hopes for a sustainable system...If i works.
So long as there are people who do not pay into the system and expect care for nothing..it will never work.
Obamacare is the same game just different more expensive shells.
But as you yourself say, they will get treatment anyway. And they'll do it the old-fashioned way of using hospital ERs which ultimately YOU pay for via the back door because hospital fees are jacked up in order to cover those who cannot pay. If you're the one with insurance, you're the one actually paying for those who cannot!!
Is all of this going to go smoothly right away? Of course not. Is it a costly program? Yes it is. But eventually it should be more cost-effective once people get used to what is covered, especially the preventive provisions which keep people healthy from the outset before they get expensively sick.
ShaklesOfBigGov said: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.
The reason there is so much opposition by people over 50 is because they have been led to believe what Republicans constantly lie about, that Medicare benefits will be cut. As I've repeatedly said, that is NOT TRUE. Medicare ADVANTAGE subsidies to insurers will be cut. People can still get coverage via Medicare Advantage plans, but they will pay a higher premium for those policies out of pocket because those insurance companies will no longer be on the government dole.
Again you say: let us promise to provide this rosy "illusion" of health care without addressing cost. Are you unable to address what I have already asked WITHOUT dodging the subject entirely? You can't make promises, if you consistently REFUSE to address the realities I have provided with COST. Do you ever buy a house without any means to pay for it, simply hand the responsibility over to the government for "someone else" to handle it?
I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.
You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.
We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.
I have answer the question. They HAVE to pay something for the treatment that they receive. Continue to dodge my questions, that will only prove to further my position.
What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?
Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.
ShaklesOfBigGov said:Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Medinnovation: Massachusetts - Doctor Wait Times, Costs, ER Visits in Massachusetts Climb
Merritt Hawkins & Associates, “2009 Survey of Physician Appointment Wait Times,” Physician Jobs and Healthcare Employment - Merritt Hawkins & Associates
It is the state where President Obama received his law school education, where Senator Edward Kennedy has fought for a single payer system for 40 years, where Obama’s closest health care advisors, Dean David Cutler, PhD, of Harvard and Robert Blumenthal, M.D., of Massachusetts General and National Coordinator for Health Information Technology,reside, and where the nation’s first “universal health plan” was spawned and has been in operation for three years.
Yet, despite this political firepower, something seems to have gone askew. Massachusetts health costs are the highest in the land. Despite the highest concentration of physicians per capita and lowest rate of uninsured among the states (2.6%), people are having a hard time finding doctors, especially primary care practitioners but other specialists as well. Bay State residents are flocking to high-cost emergency rooms for care in unprecedented numbers. And all of this in an affluent states which is supposed to set an example for other states to follow.
The average wait times for appointments in Boston for cardiology are 21 days, dermatology 54 days, obstetrics-gynecology 70 days, orthopedic surgery 40 days, and family practice 63 days.
The average cumulative wait times for the 5 specialties just mentioned are,
Boston, 50 days
Philadelphia, 27 days
Los Angeles, 24 days
Houston, 23 days
Washington, D.C., 23 days
San Diego, 20 days
Minneapolis, 20 days
Dallas, 19 days
New York, 19 days
Denver, 15 days
Miami, 15 days
Portland, 14 days
Seattle, 14 days
Detroit, 12 days
Atlanta, 11 days
Those wait times are obviously non-emergency appointments, and even then, I think they're a stretch of someone's imagination. A friend of mine had to travel to Boston to see an eye specialist for a very rare disorder. She made the appointment through an ophthalmologist in Vermont two weeks ago, and he referred her to the specialist in Boston. Her apointment was set for the week thereafter. So that's seven days, and hers was not an imminent emergency either. I have relatives in Houston, and have never once heard them complain about long waiting periods to see their doctors whose practices are affiliated with all three top medical centers in the entire country where people from around the world go for treatment. (And we've discussed the health care issue a LOT in the past couple of years. You'd think they would have mentioned the wait factor, if it existed, but they have not.)
In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05doctors.html
By KEVIN SACK — The New York Times
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
State's 'no diversion policy' is putting strain on Massachusetts hospitals
Massachusetts Nurses Association - News & Events - Archive - 2009 - State's 'no diversion policy' is putting strain on Massachusetts hospitals
From the Massachusetts Nurse Newsletter — April 2009 Edition
Wait times on the rise
Many nurses across the state reported that their emergency department wait times were increasing, some significantly. According to one respondent from a Partners-owned facility, when she came into work at 11 p.m., “The waiting room was packed. There were 17 patients waiting to be seen and those actually in the department had been waiting an average of four hours to be seen.”
Another nurse from a hospital on the South Shore reported wait times of 10 hours, which decreased to seven hours after the implementation of a new hospital patient-flow project.
Others report that psychiatric patients are waiting even longer for care. “We also see a large number of psychiatric patients and do not have a ‘dedicated area’ for them,” said a nurse from a suburban hospital outside Boston. “While these psychiatric patients wait for bed placement they stay in the ED, taking up beds which could be used for other patients. As there are limited psych beds in the state, we’ve had psych patients in the ED as long as three days—hardly therapeutic.”
Another nurse from a North Shore hospital reported, “Many nurses are exhausted and have been in tears because they are afraid someone will die on their watch. Patients wait with significant pain in the waiting room because there isn’t an open space in the ED. A myocardial infarction went undiagnosed for hours because the ED doctor was called to the intensive care unit twice to intubate another patient.”
Policies push patients out of the ED
At some hospitals, patients are moved out of emergency departments with arbitrary time limits. For example, nurses in other units are told that they have thirty minutes to turnaround a room to receive a patient—whether or not they are prepared to do so. The MNA has received other reports of hospitals admitting patients to floors without orders.
According to a nurse, “We are forced to take the patient without medical orders and to call the respective house officer to have orders written within 15 to 30 minutes of patients arriving on the floor. This is an extremely dangerous practice for both the RN and the house officer. One patient was on the floor for five hours before a nurse was able to conduct an assessment.”
I'll be happy to discuss cost, again, but like I said if we have a fundamental difference in opinion as to whether or not people should receive care even if they can not pay...well then discussing cost is pointless at that point. So that's why I asked the question of you. Once we know your answer, I would be happy to answer anything you want.
You are desiring a government run system very similar to the one I have addressed that exists in Massachusetts. I have already SHOWN what such a government Health Care will bring: higher costs, increase cost with the ER, and increase wait times. All your dodging will not change that issue. If you are incapable of defending your position of addressing how to handle such INCREASED Health Care "problems", I can't help you.
We can address allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines to help reduce costs, which is hindered by state laws. We can address the costs of tort reform and the handling frivolous law suits. We can even address the abuse that comes with the Health Care system, such as patients calling to use ER services for non life-threatening injuries, that add to cost. You haven't, however, provided me with any facts that a GOVERNMENT run Health Care would be more fiscally responsible and cost efficient than that of the private sector.
Please at least admit that the private sector has done NOTHING to bring down costs and become "cost efficient" on their own.
On that note, how would you design a working, cost efficient health care system where every class of citizen has affordable access? I'm not being snarky; it's a valid question, the answer to which seems nonexistent.
What if they can't pay anything or only a minute fraction of the total bill? Then what?
Same thing now. The ones who are paying will have to pay for the ones who dont.
You're ok with that?
