DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> US Health Reform
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 425, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/31/2010 12:47:53 PM · #76
He as compromised his values IMO. He craps on capitalism and has paid his $25 to be a full memember of this site. Unless he goes to a public tax payer funded library to use the internet, then he again is using capitalism to get his anti-capitialism word out. How many people would hear him if there was no money to be made? Not many IMO.

I also love to listen to XM Radio. There is a station called America Left. It showcases all the left wing hosts. I also listen to America Right...no explanition needed. I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth but yet their soapbox is a huge company that earns big money from subscribers like me.

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by kenskid:

Mad? Ha...no...I just wonder how an anti-capitalist like yourself can bring yourself to participate in a discussion on a 100% for profit website

Do you mean DPC? Where one can register and participate in many aspects for free? And how does the fact that the people running this site are making a living from it in any way mean an "anti-capitalist" has to compromise his values to be here? I don't think of this as a "100% for profit website" as much as a photography site. Or have I missed your point completely?
01/31/2010 02:09:21 PM · #77
Originally posted by kenskid:

I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth but yet their soapbox is a huge company that earns big money from subscribers like me.


I hear you and agree but it goes both ways. I always love the talking heads on the right who rail against the mainstream media when they are the mainstream media! Hell, fox gets a 35% share, the largest, for cable news.
01/31/2010 02:35:49 PM · #78
Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Patents4u:

There is no such thing as "free" health care, there are just different ways to pay for it. The problems with government run health care systems are well-known as are the problems with the US system. There seem to be many ways to improve both types of systems but there are constraints like cost, efficiency and effectiveness. Those constraints exist in every system and it's the constraints that people question. Or at least I think they rightly should because there are trade-offs and different ways to set up any system.

To respond to the OP's question (even though it was laughably condescending), I think most Americans are nervous that a system run by a government that hasn't done so in the past will have too many problems, and be constrained in the wrong ways, at least initially. Seems rational when you consider that even those governments that have been doing this a while are having real problems with it.

In that regard, I'll gladly compare my health insurance and available health care with any national system. The issue here in the US, and it's a very serious one, is that too many Americans do not have coverage like mine. I'm not sure that there is only one solution, or that questioning a proposed solution makes Americans stupid.


Your absolutely right... there is no free health care. The argument though, is for Universal health care.

Found this table on Wikipedia:
Health Care Cost Comparisons

US pays more per capita, yet has a higher infant mortality rate, and lower life expectancy than the other countries on the list. There are many health care models around the globe that the US could mimic to make itself more efficient.


You make a very good point. US could look into how others did it ( Taiwan would be a great example, since they solved it in a short time with great result)
However, so far , US Health Reform is more like reinvention of hot water, citizens are going to get scolded.
As others pointed out already, in order to make deal, special provisions are made to some states.
I was and am for a Just Health Care, I know nothing is perfect, but this plan is getting worst by the day.
If Obama"s only reason is to make this happen because of his own legacy, this is sad time in US history. Reason for US Health Care should be benefit of US Citizens and Not some politicians personal agenda or his ticket for reelection.
I know Obama lovers are going to retort how he is God like creature....
Obama haters wish this is end of him...
Health care should not be about HIM..
01/31/2010 03:21:43 PM · #79
The talking heads are not the mainstream media. The supposed "news" outlets such as abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, fox and the newspapers are what we refer to as mainstream.......and should be unbiased but we know are not. Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc don't pretend to be unbiased.

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by kenskid:

I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth but yet their soapbox is a huge company that earns big money from subscribers like me.


I hear you and agree but it goes both ways. I always love the talking heads on the right who rail against the mainstream media when they are the mainstream media! Hell, fox gets a 35% share, the largest, for cable news.
01/31/2010 03:49:54 PM · #80
Originally posted by Basta:

... If Obama"s only reason is to make this happen because of his own legacy, this is sad time in US history. Reason for US Health Care should be benefit of US Citizens and Not some politicians personal agenda or his ticket for reelection.
I know Obama lovers are going to retort how he is God like creature....
Obama haters wish this is end of him...
Health care should not be about HIM..

So you believe Obama wants to do good only to bolster his own legacy and chances for re-election? So any positive action he takes is suspect? Talk about a lose-lose situation. You are incapable of thinking objectively about this.
01/31/2010 03:53:33 PM · #81
Originally posted by kenskid:

... Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc don't pretend to be unbiased.

Hannity is part of Fox, a news network that pretends to offer unbiased facts and let the viewer decide. It has been said to my face more than once that O'Reilly and others on Fox are objective and fair.


EDIT:
Originally posted by kenskid:

I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth ...

I suspect this is merely what you *think* they are doing.

Message edited by author 2010-01-31 16:00:49.
01/31/2010 03:53:40 PM · #82
Originally posted by Basta:


You make a very good point. US could look into how others did it ( Taiwan would be a great example, since they solved it in a short time with great result)
However, so far , US Health Reform is more like reinvention of hot water, citizens are going to get scolded.
As others pointed out already, in order to make deal, special provisions are made to some states.
I was and am for a Just Health Care, I know nothing is perfect, but this plan is getting worst by the day.
If Obama"s only reason is to make this happen because of his own legacy, this is sad time in US history. Reason for US Health Care should be benefit of US Citizens and Not some politicians personal agenda or his ticket for reelection.
I know Obama lovers are going to retort how he is God like creature....
Obama haters wish this is end of him...
Health care should not be about HIM..


All politicians do things for their own legacy and re-election.

But so what? What if Health Care reform is for someones legacy, or re-election. If it is still good for the people, and good for the country, it should be passed.
01/31/2010 04:21:34 PM · #83
I remember Obama saying in a speech that he had the best health insurance and it's because he was the president of the United States. I have read that congress has the best health insurance plans. Do any of you agree they have great coverage? Would you like to have that same coverage that congress and the President are privilege too. Well guess who covers them...Private sector insurance companies. Mainly Blue Cross / Blue Shield. There premiums are about the same as ours would be with the same coverage but the federal government pays around 75% of the cost.

Why don't congress and White house come out with a government insurance option for themselves for a few year while paying 75% of the premiums of the citizens of the US. Let's see how that goes.

I believe there should be some insurance reform but not a complete overhaul. Cost can be contained in many ways and it should begin with the hospitals, clinics, and doctor offices that are over charging for services and supplies (i.e. Over $200 for one pill).

Help the people that want insurance and need insurance get it but leave the ones that have insurance and are happy with their coverage and premium alone.

After paying $277.78 from March 09 to December 09, my family and I now find ourselves with no insurance because we could not afford the $1095.96 per month premium. And having to pay $20 - $35 co-pay every time we went to the doctor and the co-payments on medication. So now I only have medicare. Some of my doctors will not take medicare because they don't get paid or paid to little. Then some doctors medicare will not cover. It doesn't cover any medication unless I take out medicare part-d which will be another $56 per month on top of the $96 per month I already pay for medicare. But my family will not be covered; just me.

So yes something needs to be done but what. That is the 1.6 Trillion dollar question.

01/31/2010 05:11:15 PM · #84
Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by Basta:

... If Obama"s only reason is to make this happen because of his own legacy, this is sad time in US history. Reason for US Health Care should be benefit of US Citizens and Not some politicians personal agenda or his ticket for reelection.
I know Obama lovers are going to retort how he is God like creature....
Obama haters wish this is end of him...
Health care should not be about HIM..

So you believe Obama wants to do good only to bolster his own legacy and chances for re-election? So any positive action he takes is suspect? Talk about a lose-lose situation. You are incapable of thinking objectively about this.


I do believe Obama is just another politician, no better or worst than any other. I do believe HE could care less about You or me. Do you think Bush cared? I don,t.
01/31/2010 05:16:04 PM · #85
Originally posted by SDW:

I remember Obama saying in a speech that he had the best health insurance and it's because he was the president of the United States. I have read that congress has the best health insurance plans. Do any of you agree they have great coverage? Would you like to have that same coverage that congress and the President are privilege too. Well guess who covers them...Private sector insurance companies. Mainly Blue Cross / Blue Shield. There premiums are about the same as ours would be with the same coverage but the federal government pays around 75% of the cost.

Why don't congress and White house come out with a government insurance option for themselves for a few year while paying 75% of the premiums of the citizens of the US. Let's see how that goes.

I believe there should be some insurance reform but not a complete overhaul. Cost can be contained in many ways and it should begin with the hospitals, clinics, and doctor offices that are over charging for services and supplies (i.e. Over $200 for one pill).

Help the people that want insurance and need insurance get it but leave the ones that have insurance and are happy with their coverage and premium alone.

After paying $277.78 from March 09 to December 09, my family and I now find ourselves with no insurance because we could not afford the $1095.96 per month premium. And having to pay $20 - $35 co-pay every time we went to the doctor and the co-payments on medication. So now I only have medicare. Some of my doctors will not take medicare because they don't get paid or paid to little. Then some doctors medicare will not cover. It doesn't cover any medication unless I take out medicare part-d which will be another $56 per month on top of the $96 per month I already pay for medicare. But my family will not be covered; just me.

So yes something needs to be done but what. That is the 1.6 Trillion dollar question.


WOW.. I guess I should be happy I don't need doctor..
01/31/2010 05:23:43 PM · #86
Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by Basta:


You make a very good point. US could look into how others did it ( Taiwan would be a great example, since they solved it in a short time with great result)
However, so far , US Health Reform is more like reinvention of hot water, citizens are going to get scolded.
As others pointed out already, in order to make deal, special provisions are made to some states.
I was and am for a Just Health Care, I know nothing is perfect, but this plan is getting worst by the day.
If Obama"s only reason is to make this happen because of his own legacy, this is sad time in US history. Reason for US Health Care should be benefit of US Citizens and Not some politicians personal agenda or his ticket for reelection.
I know Obama lovers are going to retort how he is God like creature....
Obama haters wish this is end of him...
Health care should not be about HIM..


All politicians do things for their own legacy and re-election.

But so what? What if Health Care reform is for someones legacy, or re-election. If it is still good for the people, and good for the country, it should be passed.


good for people?
We can buy insurance right now, or not . When they make a reform, we won't have a choice, we will have to pay for it. Than insurance companies can set any price. and I'm sure it will only go up from where it is now. Read SDW's example ....how is that good for people?

Edit. This is how it will work,
about 20 years ago insurance companies made a deal with a State of Michigan. If state makes a law that everyone must have car insurance they will cover for medical expenses with no limit in a case of incident. State made it a law. Than, with help of state politicians (after a donation) they modified this deal, now they have to pay only up to a what they feel is enough. But , our insurance premiums are going up every year, and we have no choice, its a LAW.



Message edited by author 2010-01-31 17:36:18.
01/31/2010 05:32:18 PM · #87
You dismiss Fox News which holds the largest market share of any news organization and it is filled with talking heads who represent themselves as news. I think you miss my point that they are the leading mainstream news outlet and they are very slanted toward the right. The point being is that news is no longer news on any outlet. It is an entertainment show mixed with news slanted to specific political agendas of management. That includes all of them including talk radio.

Originally posted by kenskid:

The talking heads are not the mainstream media. The supposed "news" outlets such as abc, cbs, nbc, cnn, fox and the newspapers are what we refer to as mainstream.......and should be unbiased but we know are not. Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc don't pretend to be unbiased.

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by kenskid:

I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth but yet their soapbox is a huge company that earns big money from subscribers like me.


I hear you and agree but it goes both ways. I always love the talking heads on the right who rail against the mainstream media when they are the mainstream media! Hell, fox gets a 35% share, the largest, for cable news.




Message edited by author 2010-01-31 17:35:01.
01/31/2010 07:23:14 PM · #88
Relevant article.
01/31/2010 08:20:54 PM · #89
I'm as far right as this site has to offer and will tell you....anyone who tells you that Hannity or Rush are objective are out of their minds. Now this does not mean they "lie" it just means that they may NOT report ANY positive aspects from any "left" idea.

Originally posted by citymars:

Originally posted by kenskid:

... Rush, Hannity, Laura Ingraham etc don't pretend to be unbiased.

Hannity is part of Fox, a news network that pretends to offer unbiased facts and let the viewer decide. It has been said to my face more than once that O'Reilly and others on Fox are objective and fair.


EDIT:
Originally posted by kenskid:

I can't help but laugh when the hosts of America Left spend half thier show squawking about how capitalism is the scurge of the Earth ...

I suspect this is merely what you *think* they are doing.


Message edited by author 2010-01-31 20:21:29.
01/31/2010 08:21:14 PM · #90
Originally posted by scalvert:

Relevant article.


Heh - read the first post...

Edit to add that (for the second time) this is a great article.

Message edited by author 2010-01-31 20:21:48.
01/31/2010 08:26:01 PM · #91
Originally posted by kenskid:

I'm as far right as this site has to offer and will tell you....anyone who tells you that Hannity or Rush are objective are out of their minds. Now this does not mean they "lie" it just means that they may NOT report ANY positive aspects from any "left" idea.

They lie by omission, by implication, and by misinformation (e.g., their habit of labeling law-breaking politicians as Democrats even when they are Republicans).

EDIT: Basta, I've never been comfortable with the "everyone by law must buy" aspect of the health insurance suggestions.

Message edited by author 2010-01-31 20:27:40.
03/10/2010 10:33:07 AM · #92
For those keeping up with the health care debate (I barely count myself as one of them, it's so complicated and politicized that I find it exhausting), here is a link to an interesting blog post in National Geographic Magazine about health care costs. The comments under the brief article highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the chart.
03/10/2010 12:00:23 PM · #93
I am all for universal health care. I just don't like anything that has come out of those gasbags up in Washington DC. I don't want health care reform that simply mandates that everyone *has* to pay for health insurance or they'll get the crap fined out of them. Right now, I pay 20% of my net goes to pay for my health insurance, and I only pay 1/2 of my premimum. Assuming I don't straight up get laid off at the end of the fiscal year I will for sure lose my health insurance. I do not think paying 40% (or more) for my health insurance - which doesn't cover everything by any stretch of anybody's imagination- is reasonable. And because my employer has shopped our insurance several times over the last few years, I know that Optima is by far the best/most affordable insurance out there.

I have worked with the homeless population for several years now. When I was working at the Salvation Army shelter we had three families stay with us in a six month time span who lost their homes because they got garnished for medical bills. These were people who got up and went to work every day, and they lost their homes because of medical expenses. Say that outloud to yourself a couple of times. That shouldn't even be possible. That was six years ago. Does anyone think it has gotten better?

I also know that hospitals/medical providers often over charge the uninsured. First, Time Magazine did an article on it about six years ago. I remember reading it while I was up all night at the Salvation Army. About seven years ago, I had to be taken to the ER by ambulance. My craptastic insurance initially refused to pay for it stating I should have gone to my PCP first. While I was in the process of appealing it, I received a bill for $1800 from the hospital. I called the hospital and explained that I didn't have $1800. They said I could pay for it in three payments. I explained that $600 was almost half my net, and I couldn't afford that either. There was no negotiation for a lesser amount, or for a longer term of payment. Since they knew I was employed, it was that, or they'd take me to court and garnish my wages. Finally, my insurance coughed up and paid - $900. They said that I had to pay $100 out of pocket, and the hospital had to eat the other $800. They had tried to overcharge me by $800. If I hadn't had insurance, they would have garnished my wages, and I wouldn't have been able to pay my rent. Again, that is not something that should even be possible. Nobody should have to choose between housing and health care - let along health care and feeding their kids. Since I am frequently in the court house for my job, I sometimes have occassion to look at the civil docket - almost all of it is the hospital taking people to court to be able to garnish their wages.

And back to the homeless population - of the percentage that don't have work (the majority do work) one of the biggest barriers to them obtaining/maintaining employment is chronic untreated medical conditions both physical and mental. I don't have a problem with the idea of my taxes going to get these people healthy to get them working and paying into the system.
03/10/2010 01:04:38 PM · #94
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I am all for universal health care. I just don't like anything that has come out of those gasbags up in Washington DC. I don't want health care reform that simply mandates that everyone *has* to pay for health insurance or they'll get the crap fined out of them.


There is no free lunch. The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out. How else does the system support the 65 year old who pays $10,000/year in insurance and uses $100,000/year in care? That $90,000 doesn't just materialize out of thin air.
03/10/2010 01:21:33 PM · #95
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out.

Which is why a universal system in which everyone is enrolled ought to provide the best bang for the buck because it maximizes the risk-sharing aspect.
03/10/2010 01:38:56 PM · #96
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out.

Which is why a universal system in which everyone is enrolled ought to provide the best bang for the buck because it maximizes the risk-sharing aspect.


Which is why the current plan, which isn't really universal in the sense of a government run single plan, penalizes people for not having insurance. We totally agree with each other.

There are so many ways the system is broken, I doubt it's going to be fixed in one go, and frankly the cynic in my doesn't think it will be fixed until we hit a true and real crisis. Very little in this country is really dealt with before that point. Both the Ds and the Rs are fully to blame for this.

Message edited by author 2010-03-10 13:39:13.
03/10/2010 01:50:47 PM · #97
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out.

Which is why a universal system in which everyone is enrolled ought to provide the best bang for the buck because it maximizes the risk-sharing aspect.


Which is why the current plan, which isn't really universal in the sense of a government run single plan, penalizes people for not having insurance. We totally agree with each other.

There are so many ways the system is broken, I doubt it's going to be fixed in one go, and frankly the cynic in my doesn't think it will be fixed until we hit a true and real crisis. Very little in this country is really dealt with before that point. Both the Ds and the Rs are fully to blame for this.
.

The dems and repubs are just a reflection of the people who put them into office. We are all to blame.

Message edited by author 2010-03-10 14:07:58.
03/10/2010 02:30:48 PM · #98
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I am all for universal health care. I just don't like anything that has come out of those gasbags up in Washington DC. I don't want health care reform that simply mandates that everyone *has* to pay for health insurance or they'll get the crap fined out of them.


There is no free lunch. The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out. How else does the system support the 65 year old who pays $10,000/year in insurance and uses $100,000/year in care? That $90,000 doesn't just materialize out of thin air.


I don't mind paying. I don't mind paying as much as I do. I wouldn't even mind paying a little more, but my income has a limit. I already have two jobs, and I am not young or healthy. If I haven't used $100,000 in health care this past year, I bet you I'm coming close. But, there needs to be a public option - or something that is based on one's ability to pay. If they just say, "We're going to fine you for not having insurnace," the insurance companies can have a heyday, raise insurance as high as they want, and what are we supposed to do about it? It is entirely possible that they could raise health premimums higher than some people make in a month. A person making miniumum wage working full time only nets between $900-1000 per month - and that is being optimistic. I know people who pay more than $1000 a month for health insurance, don't you? Like I said - nobody should have to choose between housing or feeding their kids and health care, and just saying, "We're gonna make it like car insurance," is not a solution. I can choose not to drive. Since I do financial counseling at the shelter I say to people every day, "There is no room anywhere in this budget for a car. Ride a bike. Take a bus. Walk." Are poor people supposed to choose not to live?
03/10/2010 02:32:23 PM · #99
Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out.

Which is why a universal system in which everyone is enrolled ought to provide the best bang for the buck because it maximizes the risk-sharing aspect.


Which is why the current plan, which isn't really universal in the sense of a government run single plan, penalizes people for not having insurance. We totally agree with each other.

There are so many ways the system is broken, I doubt it's going to be fixed in one go, and frankly the cynic in my doesn't think it will be fixed until we hit a true and real crisis. Very little in this country is really dealt with before that point. Both the Ds and the Rs are fully to blame for this.
.

The dems and repubs are just a reflection of the people who put them into office. We are all to blame.


But the public doesn't put people into office to spend 80% of their time working on getting re-elected. The beast is out of control and this is why the public has such a low opinion of congress as a whole (no matter who happens to be in charge). The machine only operates one way and even the best intentioned elected official will be stymied by it.
03/10/2010 02:34:26 PM · #100
Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I am all for universal health care. I just don't like anything that has come out of those gasbags up in Washington DC. I don't want health care reform that simply mandates that everyone *has* to pay for health insurance or they'll get the crap fined out of them.


There is no free lunch. The only way insurance works is if young, healthy people overpay for their needs. It spreads the risk and cost out. How else does the system support the 65 year old who pays $10,000/year in insurance and uses $100,000/year in care? That $90,000 doesn't just materialize out of thin air.


I don't mind paying. I don't mind paying as much as I do. I wouldn't even mind paying a little more, but my income has a limit. I already have two jobs, and I am not young or healthy. If I haven't used $100,000 in health care this past year, I bet you I'm coming close. But, there needs to be a public option - or something that is based on one's ability to pay. If they just say, "We're going to fine you for not having insurnace," the insurance companies can have a heyday, raise insurance as high as they want, and what are we supposed to do about it? It is entirely possible that they could raise health premimums higher than some people make in a month. A person making miniumum wage working full time only nets between $900-1000 per month - and that is being optimistic. I know people who pay more than $1000 a month for health insurance, don't you? Like I said - nobody should have to choose between housing or feeding their kids and health care, and just saying, "We're gonna make it like car insurance," is not a solution. I can choose not to drive. Since I do financial counseling at the shelter I say to people every day, "There is no room anywhere in this budget for a car. Ride a bike. Take a bus. Walk." Are poor people supposed to choose not to live?


From what I understand the current plan has subsidies for the poor so they can afford it. The devil is, of course, in the details, but I don't think your complaint is one that nobody has thought of.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 06:16:57 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/27/2020 06:16:57 AM EDT.