Turn in your neighbor, be a good citizen

reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3109080
Who do you think is throwing a wrench into this bill? THE REPUBLICANS. They may be the minority, but their uncooperation and 'stirring the pot' over every piece of this legislation is what is causing all the problems and making it almost impossible for Obama to even understand or figure out what is contained in any of the proposed bills.
The Democrats have more than enough votes in the house and Senate to pass laws WITHOUT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE.
You can't blame the mean ol Bublicans for this one. They can't even filibuster in the Senate at this point.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3108537
As for talking points, I haven't said anything untrue (as far as I know) you can't just dismiss something because lots of people are saying it.
I didn't accuse you of having said anything untrue. Merely unoriginal.
Democratic talking points are largely true as well. If you're intellectually honest enough to examine the narrow scope of "facts" presented by the media - you'll see that.
What I'm saying is both points of view are boring and devoid of actual thought.
Tell me something I don't know.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3109795
I didn't accuse you of having said anything untrue. Merely unoriginal.
Democratic talking points are largely true as well. If you're intellectually honest enough to examine the narrow scope of "facts" presented by the media - you'll see that.
What I'm saying is both points of view are boring and devoid of actual thought.
Tell me something I don't know.
The winning numbers for tonight's powerball drawing
 
oscardeuce

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3108351
Uh, that's what I've been saying all along. There have been multiple bills and multiple ideas floating between the House and Senate since this whole healthcare reform started. Obama was clear during his campaign as to what he envisioned the healthcare reform should look like. In typical fashion, Congress just took some of those ideas, then threw in their typical pork. The Republicans don't buy Obama's plan on how to pay for it, so they throw a wrench into that with this 'small businesses will have to pay 72%(or whatever it is) for all their employers' crap just to make sure the American people won't buy into it. Then the right-wing media take snipets out of yet another version of a bill going around about 'killing medicare', 'forcing grandma to make choices about how to die', and all the other anti-healthcare propaganda, and handing it to their 'followers' so they can disrupt any and all attempts to try and explain exactly what the final bill MAY contain.
The RealityCheck web site is Obama's attempt to try and explain what his plan is. Problem is, no one will read it. They only want to believe what the media is telling them.
Bottom line, nothing is going to happen with healthcare until our illustrious Congressmen get back from their month-long vacation (poor babies. Must be exhausted with all that work they've been doing.
).

From "fact check":
"Kavita Patel, who works with Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and who worked for years before as a physician, debunks the myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies."
and
"Melody Barnes, the President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors."
From the president's mouth.
"pain pill"
Who's lying?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/3109928
From "fact check":
"Kavita Patel, who works with Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett and who worked for years before as a physician, debunks the myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies."
and
"Melody Barnes, the President's Director of the Domestic Policy Council, debunks the malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors."
From the president's mouth.
"pain pill"
Who's lying?
Sorry. You have me lost on this one. Your factcheck's seemm to validate what Obama has been saying. So exactly what is he lying about?
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3109940
perhaps oscardeuce.. Not lying but missing the ... Pain Pill...
I wouldn't quote two of words of a total discussion would I "Who's lying?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
I just love YouTube clips. Guess you didn't bother to watch that forum live. That little YouTube snipet cut out a bunch of what he was saying to explain to the woman what would happen to her mother under his plan. Isn't video editing great?

Sorry, but that's what the problem is with elderly care. That 100 year old woman was the exception to the rule. If you would have performed that same procedure on 99% of people that same age, they wouldn't have gotten off the operating table. Millions of dollars are spent every year on worthless medical treatments for these sickly people over 80 because the family doesn't want to let go of grandma or grandpa yet. My wife gets them all the time in her ICU unit. She has this 84 year old woman whose in the final stage of Alzheimer's, has a failing kidney, and they now found she has a failing heart valve. The family is insisting she get a new valve, and my wife says the doctor has bought into it. This woman doesn't even know her name, can't talk, and can't get out of bed, yet their going to spend six figures sticking a new heart valve in her so she can 'keep on ticking'.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3109952
She has this 84 year old woman whose in the final stage of Alzheimer's, has a failing kidney, and they now found she has a failing heart valve. The family is insisting she get a new valve, and my wife says the doctor has bought into it. This woman doesn't even know her name, can't talk, and can't get out of bed, yet their going to spend six figures sticking a new heart valve in her so she can 'keep on ticking'.
The difference here, if this wasn't a government healthcare program, the for-profit insurance company would deny the procedure. Maybe for-profit companies should take over health care for 65 and up... lol Talking about the elderly showing up to vote on government health care after a litte for-profit time...
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by NigerBang
http:///forum/post/3109974
Thank you guys for reminding me why I dont come here anymore... I almost forgot..
It's like fish heads and rice, horrible. You have to eat it, once in a while, to remind yourself...
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
The curiosity about the whole healthcare debate to me is this:
If the private insurance system is the best way to go, then why are the insurance companies the most vocal opposition to government COMPETITION? (Hello - competition. Y'know - Capitalism n shite.)
If gov't sponsored insurance is so abysmal what, exactly, do they feel threatened by?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3109970
The diference here, if this wasn't a government healthcare program, the for-profit insurance company would deny the procedure. Maybe for-profit companies should take over health care for 65 and up... lol Talking about the elderly showing up to vote on government health care after a litte for-profit time...
There are a fair amount of seniors using for profit companies instead of Medicare.
Thing is who gets to decide if a 99 year old patient is worthy of getting a pacemaker. If you listen to Obama (and he's said it more than once) Doctors will do it right or wrong because they make more than just having her take a pain pill. Your opinion is the equally greedy insurance company won't pay for it because they want to save the money. So your solution is to put the government in charge. Under the current system you have government as a check to an insurance company refusing coverage. If government runs the show who is to keep them in check?
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3109981
The curiosity about the whole healthcare debate to me is this:
If the private insurance system is the best way to go, then why are the insurance companies the most vocal opposition to government COMPETITION? (Hello - competition. Y'know - Capitalism n shite.)
If gov't sponsored insurance is so abysmal what, exactly, do they feel threatened by?
Because the abysmal government insurance will put them out of business.
 
zman1

zman1

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3109995
There are a fair amount of seniors using for profit companies instead of Medicare.
Are these the ones uneverno was talking about with the 12% markup to give the private sector their government dues... Thus causing tapayers more money. Not sure I understand fair amont of seniors and profit companies in this context.
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3109998
Because the abysmal government insurance will put them out of business.
How?
The idea isn't to replace private insurance. It's to provide an affordable alternative.
If private insurance can't compete, then they deserve to die.
That's capitalism.
At least that's what the insurance companies tell the clients they deem "unworthy" of treatment.
There are a fair amount of seniors using for profit companies instead of Medicare. Thing is who gets to decide if a 99 year old patient is worthy of getting a pacemaker. If you listen to Obama (and he's said it more than once) Doctors will do it right or wrong because they make more than just having her take a pain pill. Your opinion is the equally greedy insurance company won't pay for it because they want to save the money. So your solution is to put the government in charge. Under the current system you have government as a check to an insurance company refusing coverage. If government runs the show who is to keep them in check?
Where is the gov't a check? Seriously. Last I looked the SEC gives a crap about morality.
As it stands now, nobody keeps the insurance companies in check. The bean counters get to decide who's worthy of health care. Long as the books work and the stockholders are happy....
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3110001
Are these the ones uneverno was talking about with the 12% markup to give the private sector their goverment dues... Thus causing tapayers more money. Not sure I understand fair amont of seniors and profit companies in this context.
Medicare advantage takes your 98.50 you would pay for part B which is what covers your non hospitalization stuff like regular office visits and tests etc. Here is the dirty little secret the pro socialist aren't telling you. Everyone that is collecting social security is automatically covered under medicare part A (hospitalization) and there is no premium paid for that. The reason the government pays the insurers that provide the medicare advantage accounts extra is that the medicare advantage policy also takes over your hospitalization coverage as well.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3110003
How?
The idea isn't to replace private insurance. It's to provide an affordable alternative.
If private insurance can't compete, then they deserve to die.
That's capitalism.
At least that's what the insurance companies tell the clients they deem "unworthy" of treatment.
As it stands now, who's keeping the insurance companies in check? The bean counters get to decide who's worthy of health care.
At least math can be excused as amoral. The actuarians may not be so innocent.
Yeah but what company wouldn't drop their insurance coverage in favor of the "affordable alternative"? The workers won't have a choice. Once their company does away with their insurance they are stuck either joining the government program or getting a much more expensive individual policy.
The government absolutely forces insurance companies to cover certain procedure now. Maybe all thats needed to solve this issue is to tweak the regulations about the circumstances which an insurance company can deny coverage. I mean most of my medical stuff right now is covered under a workmans comp claim which is state ran. You wouldn't believe the crap I have had to go through over the last 9 years. Seriously I should write a book%% Where do I go to fight the sate of Montana?
 
uneverno

uneverno

Active Member
See, again with the Socialist label. Why?
That isn't socialism it's stupidity.
I fail to see the equivocation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top