Is it legal if...?

[yearofthenick]

Look at Africa. Look at mothers who have to walk 12 hours per day just to get enough clean water for their families. It is tragic and we need to GIVE (accent on GIVE, not FORCE UPON) money to these people so they can have wells drilled in their own villages so they can have a constant supply of clean water.
But it also segways into my next point perfectly. That mother who walks 12 hours a day for water does NOT have the option to receive a "welfare check." She has no choice. It's either get water or die. She chooses to get water. Heaven forbid someone living in America should have to make a choice like that. And yet nobody cares about the people in Africa. What ignorant fools.

 

[bionicarm]

Somebody didn't get their ice cream after dinner.

I can agree with SOME of your statements. You're considered a pacifist because you want to leave your door unlocked? No, you lock your door all the time because of how degraded our American society has become. When I was growing up, I don't remember EVER locking any of our doors. That's because all the neighbors would have to knock before coming in. To this day, my aunt who lives in the country still leaves her door wide open all the time. I went out to her farm to do some hunting a couple months ago. Due to delays, I didn't get there until after midnight. Sure enough, the door was unlocked, I walked in, found a sheet and pillow in the closet, and crashed on the couch. Next morning, I'm waking up to the smell of bacon and eggs, with a warm greeting from my aunt and cousin. Yeaaa, I don't imagine you could do that ANYWHERE in California.
You say that MOST people who are homeless and are on welfare could get a job if they want to. Maybe. How many McDonals's or Burger King's do you know that would give a job to a guy that just walks in from the street, grungy clothes, apparently hasn't bathed in a week, and tells the manger he has limited education and sleeps in a box behind the local Walmart? Would you hire him? Where does a person who makes minimum wage supposed to live? Do the math. That's $15,000/Year before taxes. That's maybe $1,000/month take home. How many places do you know anywhere in California that you're able to rent a place for under $500/month? OK, you say get a second job. So just tp "get by", you have to work 60-80 hours per week. That leaves you just about enough time to sleep and MAYBE enjoy some relaxing activity 4 hours per day. You call that a life?
You can't compare the lifestyles of someone living in America, with someone living in Africa. Bring that woman to the US for a month, let her live even the life of a homeless person, and she'd think she was in paradise. You live your life within the environment you grow up in. There's people in Africa that have never seen electricity or running water. However, they don't complain or want for anything more because they don't know there's something better out there. So now I'm 'ignorant' because I don't care for all the indigent and poor people in Africa? Ah, so milionaires shouldn't have to give their money to the lazy homeless people living in the US, but they're "selfish idiots" because they don't donate it to every other third-world country on the planet? You don't see the hypocrasy in that statement?

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280940
Somebody didn't get their ice cream after dinner.

Haha well I get up in arms about this stuff. If there's a problem, look at the problem... don't make more problems to solve the original problem.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280940
I can agree with SOME of your statements. ......... I went out to her farm to do some hunting a couple months ago. Due to delays, I didn't get there until after midnight. Sure enough, the door was unlocked, I walked in, found a sheet and pillow in the closet, and crashed on the couch. Next morning, I'm waking up to the smell of bacon and eggs, with a warm greeting from my aunt and cousin. Yeaaa, I don't imagine you could do that ANYWHERE in California.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280940
You say that MOST people who are homeless and are on welfare could get a job if they want to. Maybe. ....... How many places do you know anywhere in California that you're able to rent a place for under $500/month? OK, you say get a second job. So just tp "get by", you have to work 60-80 hours per week. That leaves you just about enough time to sleep and MAYBE enjoy some relaxing activity 4 hours per day. You call that a life?
I call it a better life than being homeless. And at least the person has enough dignity to say they made something better of themselves instead of mooching off the state. Plus, there are plenty of homeless shelters whose sole purpose is to restore people's lives. They have beds, showers, and donated clothes. I can guarantee you that most of the homeless could easily go in and find a job.
But we're not talking about homeless people. We're talking about people living off welfare. I was listening to the radio the other day, and a woman called asking for financial advice (not political) and the financial advisor asked her what she and her husband made. They both take home $2700/mo in welfare and will be doing that for the rest of their lives because of chronic back problems. That's $5400/mo people. That's way more than a lot of people make in this country, in this world. And my tax dollars are paying into the same fund they're paying into. Now you want me to pay for their healthcare too??? Hah! What the HELL kind of world are we living in where we take money from the hard workers and give them to the lazy? Yes, they have back problems, but they're still alive. Granted, they'd never get a job moving boxes in a factory, but they could be doing a lot of other things without requiring strenuous work on the back.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280940
You can't compare the lifestyles of someone living in America, with someone living in Africa. Bring that woman to the US for a month, let her live even the life of a homeless person, and she'd think she was in paradise. You live your life within the environment you grow up in. There's people in Africa that have never seen electricity or running water. However, they don't complain or want for anything more because they don't know there's something better out there. So now I'm 'ignorant' because I don't care for all the indigent and poor people in Africa? Ah, so milionaires shouldn't have to give their money to the lazy homeless people living in the US, but they're "selfish idiots" because they don't donate it to every other third-world country on the planet? You don't see the hypocrasy in that statement?
The point I was trying to make was that there are a lot of worse situations out there than the homeless or people living on welfare, and for want of a better word, it's a "syndrome" that the U.S. uniquely carries... people who feel entitled to healthcare/welfare/etc even though they don't have to work for it. If we're going to force people to give up their hard-earned money, then at least use it for a more dire need than a lazy American who'd rather mooch off me than figure out how to survive on their own. How pathetic does someone have to be to demand that their own healthcare be paid for by others? That's the point I'm trying to make - that no matter how you sugar-coat it, requiring that someone pay into someone ELSE's healthcare is stealing.
Giving out of kindness is giving. Giving out of force is stealing. Couldn't be more black and white.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3280917
the Govt takes your money and spends it where ever it chooses, always has. the biggest chunk of our taxes goes to defense. how many rich pacifist's are out there? they dont want their taxes going to the pentagon or to build weapons, jets, battle ships, etc. yet they pay their taxes. i get where you were trying to go with your scenario, but that can be said for every government agency and program. i NEVER wanted an Iraqi invasion or its cost but i couldn't do anything about it. i didn't want the wealthiest 5% to get tax breaks, but i couldn't do anything about it. i didn't want corporations to get tax incentives to move jobs overseas, etc.
you said one thing right. "it's a noble cause" and boo hoo because your against it. EVERY industrialized DEMOCRATIC nation has some form of nationalized healthcare except us. why cant the richest nation on the planet provide basic healthcare to it's citizens regardless of income. will the rich pay for most of it? probably, and why is that so bad? your telling me most folks would rather have their tax dollar buy another needless Jet or 100 dollar toilet seat then go to save a life?
the only way it will work if everyone who can AFFORD it buy's in. that's why it's mandatory, and the fines are minimal and based on income. nobody will EVER go to jail for not buying in, but admittedly it will put a strain on the IRS. i just cant understand how anyone can REALLY be against it, especially Christians. how can you be O.K. with 50+% of your tax dollars going for defense, but against a nominal increase to provide everyone with healthcare?
Yet with all those superior socialized medicine countries where do most people come when they need serious medical treatment?
As stupid as I think socializing our health care system would be it would be better than Obamacare.

 

[bionicarm]

You have to face facts that there are two types of welfare recipients -
1) The bottom feeders who are totally capable of working, but would rather stay home sitting on their butts collecting a welfare check because it pays more than the minimum wage they would earn at their local burger joint.
2) The individual who did bust his/her rear for several decades, but because of some chronic dibilitating disease or accident, they are forced to accept welfare because they simply cannot physically work.
So you would deny those benefits to Example #2?
I agree the Welfare Sysytem has it's flaws and 'loopholes' for people to take advantage of it. The program was never intended for someone to live off of it for their entire life. It was meant for individuals who fell on hard times (physical impairment, loss of job, loss of family, etc.), and they were only supposed to stay on it long enough to get back onto their feet. Unfortunately, the Feds just let people keep sucking off of the system because as with any other Govt. Program, the left hand doesn't talk to the right. What needs to be done is, if someone needs Welfare, fine. They can stay on the program for ONE YEAR. After that, you're completely cut off. If that means you end up on the street living in a cardboard box under the bridge, so be it.

 

[beaslbob]

The question is not taking care of people but how they are taken care of.
There are much better options than a centralized managed only the government can do it system.

 

[beaslbob]

Another factor is that whenever the government controls prices (costs) below market values you create shortages.
that was bad enough during the '73 oil embargo. I don't want that with the health care system.

 

[yearofthenick]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280997
2) The individual who did bust his/her rear for several decades, but because of some chronic dibilitating disease or accident, they are forced to accept welfare because they simply cannot physically work.
So you would deny those benefits to Example #2?
Well, actually, California already provides public healthcare for low-income families... it's called "Medi-Cal" and the only requirement is that you do NOT own or have a m.o.r.t.g.a.g.e out on a home. Yes, it comes out of my state taxes. That I'm OK with, only because it takes up a tiny portion of the whole healthcare gamut. When you make public healthcare the standard, that's when I get pissed.
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280997
I agree the Welfare Sysytem has it's flaws and 'loopholes' for people to take advantage of it. The program was never intended for someone to live off of it for their entire life. It was meant for individuals who fell on hard times (physical impairment, loss of job, loss of family, etc.), and they were only supposed to stay on it long enough to get back onto their feet. Unfortunately, the Feds just let people keep sucking off of the system because as with any other Govt. Program, the left hand doesn't talk to the right. What needs to be done is, if someone needs Welfare, fine. They can stay on the program for ONE YEAR. After that, you're completely cut off. If that means you end up on the street living in a cardboard box under the bridge, so be it.
Amen Brother!

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3280997
You have to face facts that there are two types of welfare recipients -
1) The bottom feeders who are totally capable of working, but would rather stay home sitting on their butts collecting a welfare check because it pays more than the minimum wage they would earn at their local burger joint.
2) The individual who did bust his/her rear for several decades, but because of some chronic dibilitating disease or accident, they are forced to accept welfare because they simply cannot physically work.
So you would deny those benefits to Example #2?
I agree the Welfare Sysytem has it's flaws and 'loopholes' for people to take advantage of it. The program was never intended for someone to live off of it for their entire life. It was meant for individuals who fell on hard times (physical impairment, loss of job, loss of family, etc.), and they were only supposed to stay on it long enough to get back onto their feet. Unfortunately, the Feds just let people keep sucking off of the system because as with any other Govt. Program, the left hand doesn't talk to the right. What needs to be done is, if someone needs Welfare, fine. They can stay on the program for ONE YEAR. After that, you're completely cut off. If that means you end up on the street living in a cardboard box under the bridge, so be it.
Most people who are disabled collect disability, not sure how many qualify for welfare too.
With health care it is going to have to be all or nothing one way or another. Half measures bring you Amtrack or the USPS. I am not sure how you could tell someone who dropped the coin and invested the time to become a Doc they now only make X per year or tell the people who spend their own money to build a medical office or hospital they now can only charge X. It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle. Our for profit medical industry is responsible for a whole lot of innovation. A big part of the problem if you could call it that are all those medical advances. A hip replacement probably costs more than the patient's life time premium payments. Things they do with heart surgery are amazing, and expensive. It is a lot more expensive to keep a sick person alive and as our knowledge expands the time we can keep sick people alive increases. We are victims of our own success. Where do we get the money to pay for all these treatments?

 

[yearofthenick]

Beside that, it's good to have it be capitalist-based because there's a level competition. Granted, it's not as intense as AT&T and Verizon, but it's still competitive. You can choose Blue Cross, Kaiser, etc. When public healthcare becomes the only game in town, there will no longer be any competition, which means the medical area has no desire to be the "best" because there's nothing else out there to be "better" than. Make sense?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3281052
Most people who are disabled collect disability, not sure how many qualify for welfare too.
With health care it is going to have to be all or nothing one way or another. Half measures bring you Amtrack or the USPS. I am not sure how you could tell someone who dropped the coin and invested the time to become a Doc they now only make X per year or tell the people who spend their own money to build a medical office or hospital they now can only charge X. It's hard to put the genie back into the bottle. Our for profit medical industry is responsible for a whole lot of innovation. A big part of the problem if you could call it that are all those medical advances. A hip replacement probably costs more than the patient's life time premium payments. Things they do with heart surgery are amazing, and expensive. It is a lot more expensive to keep a sick person alive and as our knowledge expands the time we can keep sick people alive increases. We are victims of our own success. Where do we get the money to pay for all these treatments?

I guess that's where i'm confused. So is this couple whose pulling in $5400/month with chronic back pain on welfare or disability? Based on your statement, I assume the latter.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by YearOfTheNick
http:///forum/post/3281053
Beside that, it's good to have it be capitalist-based because there's a level competition. Granted, it's not as intense as AT&T and Verizon, but it's still competitive. You can choose Blue Cross, Kaiser, etc. When public healthcare becomes the only game in town, there will no longer be any competition, which means the medical area has no desire to be the "best" because there's nothing else out there to be "better" than. Make sense?
My understanding of Obamacare from the onset was it was not intended to completely replace the existing insurance healthcare plan that most people have either with their companies, or through an independent agent. I always heard Obama state, "If you have current insurance and like it, fine. You do nothing." Now that tune could have changed since this whole thing started. The intent was to provide an alternative low-cost healthcare solution to those individuals who didn't work for major companies where they could get a 'discounted' insurance package at a group rate, or for those individuals who are self-employed and can't afford a $600 - $800/month insurance premium. The biggest question has always been where Obama was going to come up with the money to pay for this low-cost insurance. That's where he was going to jack taxes up by 3% - 5% on anyone making $250,000/year or more. Wou;d that be enough to cover the cost for these millions of people that need the insurance? Doubtful. Thta's the biggest issue in his plan that noone can answer.
Could this plan kill the major insurance providers? Again, doubtful. I still haven't seen what kind of coverages you get for this Government-Funded insurance for one. If the coverage sucks, or has outrageous deductibles and out-of-pocket maxes, people aren't going to jump ship from their current providers. What will have to happen is you'll have to look at both plans and simply see which one is most affordable for you and your family.
Last year, my wife was given two alternative insurance plans at her work. One plan, you paid $300/month and got a deductible of $500 individual, $1,500 out-of-pocket max individual, and $3,000out-of-pocket max for family. Plan Two, you paid $100/month, and you got this 'credit card' with $1,500 on it to use for any medical expenses you had for the year. After that was used up, your deductible was $3,000 individual, and an out-of-pocket max of $8,000. She laughed and said everyone at the hospital called the two plans "Screw me now (paying the high monthly premium, but getting lower deductibles)" and "Screw me later (paying low premiums, but having higher deductibles)." They all sat down and crunched all the numbers, and they came up with a 'break even' point where the two plans cost about the same. She said what it boiled down to was that if you and your family were in pretty good health, Plan Two was the better option. However, if you had a major medical condition occur, you'd end up spending more if you had stayed on Plan One. So it essentially was a roll of the dice.

 

[spanko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0bh7...layer_embedded

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3281095
I guess that's where i'm confused. So is this couple whose pulling in $5400/month with chronic back pain on welfare or disability? Based on your statement, I assume the latter.
Pulling in 5400 from what? Private disability insurance? Workers Comp insurance?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3281098
My understanding of Obamacare from the onset was it was not intended to completely replace the existing insurance healthcare plan that most people have either with their companies, or through an independent agent. I always heard Obama state, "If you have current insurance and like it, fine. You do nothing." Now that tune could have changed since this whole thing started. The intent was to provide an alternative low-cost healthcare solution to those individuals who didn't work for major companies where they could get a 'discounted' insurance package at a group rate, or for those individuals who are self-employed and can't afford a $600 - $800/month insurance premium. The biggest question has always been where Obama was going to come up with the money to pay for this low-cost insurance. That's where he was going to jack taxes up by 3% - 5% on anyone making $250,000/year or more. Wou;d that be enough to cover the cost for these millions of people that need the insurance? Doubtful. Thta's the biggest issue in his plan that noone can answer.
Could this plan kill the major insurance providers? Again, doubtful. I still haven't seen what kind of coverages you get for this Government-Funded insurance for one. If the coverage sucks, or has outrageous deductibles and out-of-pocket maxes, people aren't going to jump ship from their current providers. What will have to happen is you'll have to look at both plans and simply see which one is most affordable for you and your family.
Last year, my wife was given two alternative insurance plans at her work. One plan, you paid $300/month and got a deductible of $500 individual, $1,500 out-of-pocket max individual, and $3,000out-of-pocket max for family. Plan Two, you paid $100/month, and you got this 'credit card' with $1,500 on it to use for any medical expenses you had for the year. After that was used up, your deductible was $3,000 individual, and an out-of-pocket max of $8,000. She laughed and said everyone at the hospital called the two plans "Screw me now (paying the high monthly premium, but getting lower deductibles)" and "Screw me later (paying low premiums, but having higher deductibles)." They all sat down and crunched all the numbers, and they came up with a 'break even' point where the two plans cost about the same. She said what it boiled down to was that if you and your family were in pretty good health, Plan Two was the better option. However, if you had a major medical condition occur, you'd end up spending more if you had stayed on Plan One. So it essentially was a roll of the dice.
So worst case scenario is you and your wife both need simple heart valve replacement surgery. You are out of pocket 6600.00 between premium and out of pocket while the proceedures cost a little better than 50 grand each assuming there are no complications. So who makes up the other 93,400.00 you didn't pay? At your current level it would take around 30 years of premiums to make that up and that is assuming you don't use your insurance for anything else over that time.

 

[vinnyraptor]

who said pacifists are weak, a shaolin monk is a pacifist. but he will defend himself and is deadly. those who oppose unjustified wars aren't weak either, in fact alot of protester's served in the armed forces. your opinion of those on welfare is a stereo-type that most people who never struggled have. alot of people who get assistance do work. they just dont make enough to make ends meet. i like you work 1.5 jobs, my wife stays home with our son and we get zero assistance from the gov't. i pay for our healthcare, our food, rent, everything. but i grew up poor and know how things are in the inner city. do some abuse welfare absolutley! but many need it and use it to overcome their situations. single mom's go to college, while the gov't helps feed their kids and pay their bills. nowadays folks just cant stay on welfare indefinately, they have a certain amout of time to get a job or go to school. if they dont there cut off.
we already have nationalized health-care and have for decades, it's called medi-care. so i guess were already socialists right? imagine if we didn't have medi-care, what would this country look like? who would take care of the elderly, the infirmed? this plan isn't for lazy poor people, those people are ALREADY covered buy medi-care. this is for the young college student, the small business owner, the entrepenuer, etc. and no-one talks about all of the much needed reforms in this bill. like forcing the insurance companies to cover kids with pre-existing conditions, to eliminated the cap limit on health-care, and not allowing insurance companies to cut you when you get sick. what if your kid had a condition where he needed expensive care and you lost your job and insurance. currently no insurance company would touch him and he/she could die and bankrupt your family. those are MUCH needed changes dont you agree?
oh and BTW the "PIGS" are at the top of the pyramid not the bottom....

 

[vinnyraptor]

excellent point Reef and one i never really considered. but we cant just provide these expensive treatments to only those who can afford it can we? thats why i'm against for profit healthcare in the first place. capitalism is great but i think this is the one area where it shouldn't be applied.
i'm pretty sure those on disability can get food stamps if they quailify and thats based on how many in the household etc. i dont think they can get a check though....

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3281167
excellent point Reef and one i never really considered. but we cant just provide these expensive treatments to only those who can afford it can we? thats why i'm against for profit healthcare in the first place. capitalism is great but i think this is the one area where it shouldn't be applied.
i'm pretty sure those on disability can get food stamps if they quailify and thats based on how many in the household etc. i dont think they can get a check though....
Dunno. I went down 10 years ago and I draw just under 1500.00 a month off a 25K or so a year base salary back then. Because I have so much investement income, let alone the wife's salary not only wouldn't I qualify for any aid my social security is all taxed. If I was single with no other outside income I am not sure that would qualify me for food stamps. 1392.00 tax free a month after paying my Medicare isn't peanuts for one person to live on.

 

[reefraff]

I mentioned upthread that I agree with the notion of making everyone buy health insurance, I just don't think it is constitutional for the government to require it.
Our for profit medical industry has led to all kinds of innovations. You remove the profit motive much of that doesn't get done. If the government flipped a switch and made all the doctors government employees I doubt that would solve anything either. First thing that would happen is all the docs would be unionized. That isn't going to work. You could probably knock them down from 30.00 an hour to 10.00 an hour and they would end up making more money because of the crazy schedules most work and the overtime they would draw because of it.
I think our best next step is to take away the non medicals costs, Lawsuits or practices used out of fear thereof, record keeping keeping and administrative costs.
Medicare is a socialized health care system. And it is going broke. That should be all you need to know about the program to see that government ran health care isn't the tra la la bang up good time those pushing it think it will be. Medicare is a real mess. It's hard to find a doc that will accept it unless you happen to be in a PPO through a Medicare Advantage plan.

 

[saxman]

i totally agree, reef.
another thing to consider:
if everyone HAS to pay into a socialized medical program, how many employers will use that as a reason not to offer alternate coverage? after all, even tho employees pay healthcare premiums, the employer is still usually covering SOME of the cost as well.
back in the "old days", most companies paid for 100% of the health insurance for its employees, but as those costs rose, they looked to the employees to pay the difference.
if anyone wants to know how well socialized medicine DOESN'T work, just ask Cranberry. not only is she from Canada, she's a RN, so she can give you some insight on the subject. the bottom line is she LOL's at it and sez it sux.