| Author |
Message |
    
Davegess
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 12:36 pm: | 
|
Same with the blood transfusions argument Not expensive? Define that that please.
RARELY does an employer make medical choices in health care based upon the religious convictions of the owners.
Then why are people calling for the law to allow that they do so? Is it because they are not allowed to exempt common medical procedures from most coverage now?
Last time a checked Obama care was NOT a single payer system. And that has not been an objection to it.
I want to hear how you folks propose to get universal, or nearly universal there are always folks outside the system, health care to work? We spend roughly triple per capita what the next highest spending country pays and yet millions of people have really crappy access to medical care. Don't give me the old charity care, hospitals have to treat you argument, been there, that health coverage sucks. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 12:59 pm: |
|
But mostly Dave, why would you feel a right to demand that any employer provide your health insurance? Many do as enticements and to benefit their work force, but they are under absolutely no obligation to do so. If you do hold that it is an employer's obligation to provide health care for employees, then haven't you been sucked into the entitlement mentality where people are persuaded to look to others for their own care and well being rather than to themselves?
It's not too late my friend. Please take an ideological step back so you can begin to see the forest from the trees and try to recognize how absurd some of our current conventional thinking has become. Pray for truth, and give the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights a rigorous review.
What did Jefferson really mean when he stated "If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy" ?
What does the 1st Amendment really mean when it states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" ?
What was the original intent of the congress in affirming the above?
If we are to enjoy the rule of law versus the rule of men (tyranny), shouldn't we adhere to the actual law as intended or change it through prescribed lawful means? |
Reindog
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 01:08 pm: |
|
Dave,
Julie brought up single payer. That said, Obamacare logically leads to single payer. Obama knows that. Obamacare means that employers will abandon health insurance for employees and opt to pay a fine. The health insurance industry will be the next to go. Hello, Government Run and Government Controlled Health Care. But you already know that.
Listen to Mother Blake. This issue is vitally important to the future of America. It is time to stop this slide towards European Socialism as the very thought is hateful and 100% Un-American. |
Reindog
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 01:33 pm: |
|
quote:I want to hear how you folks propose to get universal, or nearly universal there are always folks outside the system, health care to work?
This has been covered to death so it is your homework assignment to find true and substantive health care reform proposals in the Badweb archive. DG gets detention for falling asleep in the BW classroom. 
------------------------------
Edit reason: (added Smiley)
(Message edited by reindog on April 07, 2012) |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 01:59 pm: |
|
Same with the blood transfusions argument Not expensive? Define that that please.
I would look at it the same way the insurance company I used to work for looks at it. Amortized across the lifetime of the policy, vs. how often it's paid for. Most people seldom have surgery. Amortized over a lifetime it's only going to cost a few bucks a year.
RARELY does an employer make medical choices in health care based upon the religious convictions of the owners.
And yet it happens. And it's protected under the first amendment. Are you happy just tearing up the first amendment, or should we tear up the entire Constitution too?
I want to hear how you folks propose to get universal, or nearly universal there are always folks outside the system, health care to work?
That would be the single payer system that you claim BO care isn't about.
We spend roughly triple per capita what the next highest spending country pays and yet millions of people have really crappy access to medical care.
High cost is associated with a high level of care and state of the art techniques, equipment, and medicine. All of this cost money to develop. Most of that development happens where companies can profit from the development. That means mostly in the US. It was only a few generations ago that good health care was a physician with a little black bag. That same level of health care would be very affordable today. It would also get the physician either sued out of existence or thrown right in jail. Countries with their single payer system tend to be reliant on other countries to develop the new techniques, equipment, and medicines. Who will the world rely on in the future when the US is no longer the leader in state of the art medical care? I'm glad BO care didn't come about when the little black bag was state of the art. The level of health care would be stalled there.
Don't give me the old charity care, hospitals have to treat you argument, been there, that health coverage sucks.
You do tend to get what you pay for. I bet it was a far cry better that a physician with a little black bag though. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 07, 2012 - 02:18 pm: |
|
Can anyone give an example of any consumer service where removal from the free market improved said service in any way?
In every single case where govt intrudes into the free enterprise (crony capitalism), the effected market sector is harmed, EVERY SINGLE TIME!
Fed govt decides it wants more folks to own homes, so it guarantees cheap loans to first time homebuyers and then to anyone who wants a mortgage. Result? Home prices are artificially inflated to wild heights; then eventually that bubble bursts and our economy is devasted.
Fed govt decides it wants more folks to attend college, so it guarantees loans to students. Result? Tuition rates soar beyond anything ever imagined and students are now enslaved by massive debt.
The financialization of health care has had the exact same effect on it.
Obama-care will only make it even worse, but the result inevitably will be to destroy the innovation and quality of care in general.
See Britain or Canada for example.
Poo-pooing actual charity in favor of govt mandated nanny state? Why?
I wonder if you can guess how many hospitals in America were founded by Churches? |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Monday, April 09, 2012 - 02:57 pm: |
|
I really wish people would pay attention to what is happening in Europe because that is our future if we don't get a handle on things. Health Care is just one part of it, but a BIG part of it considering the cost and % of our nationally GDP. But the pure fact of the matter is you cannot keep spending out of control with sky rocketing debt and not expect it to come home to roost at some point in time.
The only difference between us and Greece right now is the fact that we print our own money and issue our own debt.
Does it not bother anyone that China owns most of our debt? You don't think that has a huge impact on relations with them?
Really, anyone who is not concerned about our spending and debt levels needs to ask themselves why. IMO, they are either ignorant of the situation and the potential impacts or far too worried about protecting their piece of the pie (whatever hand-out they get from the Government) to realize it just can't continue.
Someone remind me ... when was the last time Obama actually had a Budget that his administration operated under? He seems to be of the opinion that all you need to do is submit a budget for a vote.
Also, wasn't it just about 6 months ago or so that we had a HUGE controversy about raising the Debt Ceiling? And what does Obama do just a few months later ... submit the largest Budget ever that will add Trillions to the deficit.
But hey ... Sure ... lets bring that guy back for another 4 years and see how things look. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Monday, April 09, 2012 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Someone remind me ... when was the last time Obama actually had a Budget that his administration operated under?
I believe BO will be the first President in our history to never sign a budget. Ironic that four years ago one of the complaints about BO was that he had never worked within a budget. Four years later, and we have that same complaint. It should just be easier to see why it's important now. |
|
