Health care and the strong arm tactic

uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3063517
How many people have died escaping from the US to Cuba?
How is the question relevant?
The point I was making was that in Europe, where health care is socialized, as a non-citizen you have to pay into the system.
Here, where it's private, as a non-citizen, it's free to you, but the taxpaying citizen is required to foot your bill.
The Socialist European model makes more economic sense to me than the "Capitalist" American model.
Our health care system is yet another example of Capitalism for the poor and Socialism for the rich:
Who benefits from illegal immigrant's health care being paid for by the taxpayer? Their employers do because they've taken their portion of the health care costs off their payroll and handed it to us.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/3063666
On the contrary, I believe obama/liberals want to give more benefits to illegals to help secure future elections after all these illegals are given amnesty and become part of the fold.
Reagan pushed through a brilliant amnesty package.
Where did Bush stand on the subject? Oh, yeah - amnesty.
It's not just Obama, kids.
That's Corporatism™, not Liberalism.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
I grew up around a whole lot of American born Mexican people and they hated the illegals worse than anyone. I think the politicians are misreading the whole latino vote where it comes to amnesty. I say whoever stops the flow of the gravy train will gain a whole lot of votes.
 
sickboy

sickboy

Active Member
I personally think that bankruptcies are a main cause of high medical costs. Most of the cases that come across my desk, medical bills are the leading cause of the bankruptcy filing. Insurance companies are considered unsecured general creditors, or they have no rights to property, etc, so they only get paid pennies on the dollar in the bankruptcy court, if anything at all. We pay for all of those people eventually though our increased premiums.
It is possible if everyone had insurance, the cost would be lowered, there would less bankruptcy filings hence lowering the cost of doing business for the insurance companies b/c people would actually pay, therefore they provide more at a lower cost....
 
ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Under Obamas so called HEALTH CARE REFORM my father would have been KILLED 3 times in the LAST 3 YEARS NO FREAKING THANK YOU.I prefer to see my father ALIVE rather than visit a grave marker instead. The same thing with my wifes father his Cancer treatments would have been stopped under OBAMA's Healthcare reforms all because they are BOTH OVER 65 and according to his HEALTHCARE CZAR People like that are NO LONGER PRODUCTIVE Well I guess we need to kill CONGRESS THEN. Since MOST OF THEM HAVE HELD A PRIVATE SECTOR JOB IN THEIR FREAKING LIVES.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3064236
Under Obamas so called HEALTH CARE REFORM my father would have been KILLED 3 times in the LAST 3 YEARS NO FREAKING THANK YOU.I prefer to see my father ALIVE rather than visit a grave marker instead. The same thing with my wifes father his Cancer treatments would have been stopped under OBAMA's Healthcare reforms all because they are BOTH OVER 65 and according to his HEALTHCARE CZAR People like that are NO LONGER PRODUCTIVE Well I guess we need to kill CONGRESS THEN. Since MOST OF THEM HAVE HELD A PRIVATE SECTOR JOB IN THEIR FREAKING LIVES.
ironeagle: Could you please provide us with original citations for these claims, or is this just more swiftboat stuff?
 
ironeagle2006

ironeagle2006

Active Member

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064256
ironeagle: Could you please provide us with original citations for these claims, or is this just more swiftboat stuff?
Fine last year August right after he Turned 65 Devolped Severe Peumonia Under Obama's WONDERFUL SOCIALIST MEDICEICE he would HVE NOT GOTTEN THE MEDS NEEDED TO SAVE HIS LIFE. 3 Months ago Diagnosed with MRSA in the Bones after a fall and the infection had eaten the T-5 and T-6 Vertabra out of his SPINE I checked AGAIN UNDER OBAMA he would have BEEN DENIED THE CARE NEEDED. Because of the fact he has been bedridden he devloped a series of blood clots and they devolped into Compartment Syndrome. Again under the Obama HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THEY WOULD HAVE LET HIM SUFFER AND DIE. Obamas plan is BASED on the one in Britian were the Young get all the treatment and the OLD are left to ROT were they fall. Except for the RULERS they get all the healthcare they need. ANYONE REMEMBER THE ANIMAL FARM ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL EXCEPT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS AKA THE PIGS AKA THE GOVERMENT THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF US. Sorry I am not going to take this lying down since when did we ELECT A FREAKING DICTATOR TO POWER OBAMA SURE AS HELL THINKS HE IS ONE. He thinks he can do what ever whenever and there are no consquences WHY because no one will QUESTION HIM BECAUSE IF THEY DO ALL HE HAS TO DO IS PULL THE RACE CARD OUT.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
For the parasites who get a free ride now socialized healthcare is great. If you pay taxes get ready for it to at least double. We have to pay for a whole new bureaucracy, provide Cadillac care for people who wont put in the effort to support themselves and at the same time there is NOTHING in the O plan to cut or even control the costs. Simple law of economics dictates that if you increase demand for something the price will be increased.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member

Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3064276
Fine last year August right after he Turned 65 Devolped Severe Peumonia Under Obama's WONDERFUL SOCIALIST MEDICEICE he would HVE NOT GOTTEN THE MEDS NEEDED TO SAVE HIS LIFE. 3 Months ago Diagnosed with MRSA in the Bones after a fall and the infection had eaten the T-5 and T-6 Vertabra out of his SPINE I checked AGAIN UNDER OBAMA he would have BEEN DENIED THE CARE NEEDED. Because of the fact he has been bedridden he devloped a series of blood clots and they devolped into Compartment Syndrome. Again under the Obama HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THEY WOULD HAVE LET HIM SUFFER AND DIE. Obamas plan is BASED on the one in Britian were the Young get all the treatment and the OLD are left to ROT were they fall. Except for the RULERS they get all the healthcare they need. ANYONE REMEMBER THE ANIMAL FARM ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL EXCEPT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS AKA THE PIGS AKA THE GOVERMENT THINK THEY ARE BETTER THAN THE REST OF US. Sorry I am not going to take this lying down since when did we ELECT A FREAKING DICTATOR TO POWER OBAMA SURE AS HELL THINKS HE IS ONE. He thinks he can do what ever whenever and there are no consquences WHY because no one will QUESTION HIM BECAUSE IF THEY DO ALL HE HAS TO DO IS PULL THE RACE CARD OUT.
ironeagle: Repeat - ORIGINAL CITATIONS. That means, exactly where did you see this? I never believe these kinds of unsupported statements because the far right has learned (the left has learned this lesson, too) that if you say a lie frequently enough, it goes viral and everybody just assumes that it must be the truth. So, where was this said by the (imaginary) health care czar? I'm not saying it wasn't said, I'm asking exactly who said it, where was it said, under what conditions, and who reported that it was said. Without that, there is no way to evaluate the statement, and as I said before, just another swiftboat attack.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3064323
For the parasites who get a free ride now socialized healthcare is great. If you pay taxes get ready for it to at least double. We have to pay for a whole new bureaucracy, provide Cadillac care for people who wont put in the effort to support themselves and at the same time there is NOTHING in the O plan to cut or even control the costs. Simple law of economics dictates that if you increase demand for something the price will be increased.
Funny, those simple laws of economics don't seem to apply in Europe, where they spend 50% of what we spend on health care, and still manage to have one-half the infant mortality, for example.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064337
Funny, those simple laws of economics don't seem to apply in Europe, where they spend 50% of what we spend on health care, and still manage to have one-half the infant mortality, for example.
I hear the socialists pull that argument out all the time. There are numerous programs for prenatal and infant care in this country for the poor, I would say the high infant mortality rate is largely due to women who won't put down the crack pipe and quite drinking during the pregnancy rather than the lack of care. I'd be interested to see what the mortality rates are in the Euro countries with the high drug usage.
And what is the average tax rate in Europe again?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064331
ironeagle: Repeat - ORIGINAL CITATIONS. That means, exactly where did you see this? I never believe these kinds of unsupported statements because the far right has learned (the left has learned this lesson, too) that if you say a lie frequently enough, it goes viral and everybody just assumes that it must be the truth. So, where was this said by the (imaginary) health care czar? I'm not saying it wasn't said, I'm asking exactly who said it, where was it said, under what conditions, and who reported that it was said. Without that, there is no way to evaluate the statement, and as I said before, just another swiftboat attack.
I posted what Obama's plan is at the top of this thread. Guess Rush and Fox News don't know how to read...
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3064455
I hear the socialists pull that argument out all the time. There are numerous programs for prenatal and infant care in this country for the poor, I would say the high infant mortality rate is largely due to women who won't put down the crack pipe and quite drinking during the pregnancy rather than the lack of care. I'd be interested to see what the mortality rates are in the Euro countries with the high drug usage.
And what is the average tax rate in Europe again?
Maybe that argument is pulled out all the time because it is correct! The European country that has a high rate of drug usage that comes to mind immediately is the Netherlands, and they have a sort of socialized medical plan, and their infant mortality rate is almost 1/3 less than in the US (4.7 vs. 6.3).
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3064482
I posted what Obama's plan is at the top of this thread. Guess Rush and Fox News don't know how to read...
No, you didn't. Your first post is #24, which makes a series of charges as if they were facts. I asked you for the source, and you responded with more unsupported assertions, and now are citing a non-existent posting. The posting at the top of this thread has nothing at all to do with the statements you made. Like I said, lies going viral, also known as "swiftboating". Americans really need to do better in this very important debate about health care and how to pay for it. Many people on this board differ in their views about this issue, but are honest enough to preface their assertions with "I think" or "I believe", which is fine. Unfounded assertions, presented as fact (including claims of having checked facts with a nonexistent health care czar) is just dishonest. We understand you don't want health care reform, but be honest enough to just say so, and give verifiable facts to support your opinion and you will get a much better hearing.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064522
No, you didn't. Your first post is #24, which makes a series of charges as if they were facts. I asked you for the source, and you responded with more unsupported assertions, and now are citing a non-existent posting. The posting at the top of this thread has nothing at all to do with the statements you made. Like I said, lies going viral, also known as "swiftboating". Americans really need to do better in this very important debate about health care and how to pay for it. Many people on this board differ in their views about this issue, but are honest enough to preface their assertions with "I think" or "I believe", which is fine. Unfounded assertions, presented as fact (including claims of having checked facts with a nonexistent health care czar) is just dishonest. We understand you don't want health care reform, but be honest enough to just say so, and give verifiable facts to support your opinion and you will get a much better hearing.

Wrong person GeriDoc. Read MY post - #2.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3064518
Maybe that argument is pulled out all the time because it is correct! The European country that has a high rate of drug usage that comes to mind immediately is the Netherlands, and they have a sort of socialized medical plan, and their infant mortality rate is almost 1/3 less than in the US (4.7 vs. 6.3).
How do you explain it? We have numerous free programs for people too irresponsible to support their own off spring. I guess they are poor because they are stupid. Pretty dumb not to take advantage of services being offered if you gotta have them.
But maybe this explains it
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...924/2healy.htm
"First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."
"One sure biological factor is volume overload from multiple-birth pregnancies, something that's been on the rise with the increased use of fertility treatments. In fact, our steadily declining infant mortality rate stalled and took a slight blip upward in 2003 possibly because of that. But there are other triggers of early labor like placental deterioration, inflammation or infection, or mixed-up hormonal signals. There is also evidence that specific genes may make some families (or maybe ethnic groups) prone to spontaneous preterm births."
Hmmmm, maybe our insistence that insurance covers fertility treatments isn't such a great idea after all.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3064595
How do you explain it? We have numerous free programs for people too irresponsible to support their own off spring. I guess they are poor because they are stupid. Pretty dumb not to take advantage of services being offered if you gotta have them.
But maybe this explains it
http://health.usnews.com/usnews/heal...924/2healy.htm
"First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."
"One sure biological factor is volume overload from multiple-birth pregnancies, something that's been on the rise with the increased use of fertility treatments. In fact, our steadily declining infant mortality rate stalled and took a slight blip upward in 2003 possibly because of that. But there are other triggers of early labor like placental deterioration, inflammation or infection, or mixed-up hormonal signals. There is also evidence that specific genes may make some families (or maybe ethnic groups) prone to spontaneous preterm births."
Hmmmm, maybe our insistence that insurance covers fertility treatments isn't such a great idea after all.

Define 'poor'. There are plenty of people out there that work two or three different jobs just to scrape together enough money to pay for living essentials - rent, clothing, and food. After they pay these, they don't have any money left to pay the exhorbitant insurance premiums for even basic services. So even if they are 'hard workers', yet still have incomes at the poverty level, they shouldn't be allowed some type of low-cost health care?
You simply have a beef with the 'welfare recipients' who sit on their rears all day because they get more in government checks than they would if they worked full time at McDonalds or Burger King. That I can agree with. My take on welfare is some people do have life changing events whereby they need some assistance to help get by. But that assistance should be TEMPORARY. If you go on welfare, you have 1 year to either find a new profession, or some form of job. After the year is up, so are the free checks. If that puts you out on the street, so be it. Look at New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina was what, three years ago? There's still hundreds of people living in FEMA trailers, and getting free rent from FEMA. THREE YEARS. Tell me that's not a broken system.
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3064615
You simply have a beef with the 'welfare recipients' who sit on their rears all day because they get more in government checks than they would if they worked full time at McDonalds or Burger King. That I can agree with. My take on welfare is some people do have life changing events whereby they need some assistance to help get by. But that assistance should be TEMPORARY. If you go on welfare, you have 1 year to either find a new profession, or some form of job. After the year is up, so are the free checks. If that puts you out on the street, so be it. Look at New Orleans. Hurricane Katrina was what, three years ago? There's still hundreds of people living in FEMA trailers, and getting free rent from FEMA. THREE YEARS. Tell me that's not a broken system.
We want this same gov't running healthcare?
$2500 pre paid credit cards ( filled with MY tax $$$) for adult entertainment and big screen TV's.
No thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top