Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Healthcare in America...

That part of the legislation will probably be thrown out when it gets to court. I'm in favor of the rest. It's not great, but it's a start.
 
I'm all for a healthier population, but with so many health problems CAUSED by risky activity and poor lifestyle choices, shouldnt more resources be put into prevention?

;)
mm
 
missmanners said:
I'm all for a healthier population, but with so many health problems CAUSED by risky activity and poor lifestyle choices, shouldnt more resources be put into prevention?

;)
mm
Click to expand...

That depends. What's your idea of prevention? Eat healthy, balanced diet, exercise, and all that. But what constitutes a healthy diet? Sure as hell not all the additives and preservatives that are put into our food supply to 'extend' product life. You think smoking is bad, look up some of the chemicals they use to preserve produce. Did you know that that steak you had the other night could have gone bad an you didn't know it? The FDA allows company's to package meat in carbon monoxide. It preserves the meat and gives it that vibrant 'pink' color. But also conceals the signs and smells of rotting and decay. BTW, carbon monoxide is one of the more popular methods of suicide. And yet they approve it as a preservative in foods meant for human consumption. How messed up is that?
 
Prevention of chronic illness too...getting people on treatment they can afford early, saves money, hospital beds and lives.
 
The various state challenges are probably going to go tits up since states have the right to opt out of this procedure already. I'm guessing the best attack will be forcing a citizen to enter into contract under duress.
 
Sarek said:
BTW, carbon monoxide is one of the more popular methods of suicide. And yet they approve it as a preservative in foods meant for human consumption. How messed up is that?
Click to expand...

It isn't. There are quite a few things that are dangerous in one application and not in another. Mercury for one. By itself it's massively toxic. You create an amalgam with another metal and it's molecular structure changes. It becomes inert and is used to repair teeth.
 
I, for one am disgusted and appalled at the behavior of my fellow Americans who have taken the sacred oath to serve our great nation in Washington. Do they not realize that by doing this they are taking us ever closer to the forfeiture of our liberties to the false god of the State? Do they not realize that this is tantamount to naming the State as the giver of rights, and not Nature's God? Nay, if this be the case, our rights become nothing more than privileges. Rights in name only. The State decides who is to get care, how much and what kind. Bureaucrats in Washington decide on our fates, and force us to choose the care THEY decide.

Health care in this nation is indeed in grave crisis, but there are better ways to solve this quandary than to turn it over to the thieves and vultures in the capitol. It's very true that the insurance companies have taken advantage of the situation for their own gain at the expense of the individual. However, many have taken this to mean that in order to gain protection from the pickpocket, we must befriend the highwayman.

The Supreme Court will now play it's role in this grand drama. It will no doubt examine the blatant unconstitutional provisions in this monstrosity. Including the egregious mandate to purchase a health plan or be penalized. Could anything be more opposed to the spirit in which our Constitution was drafted? The move is now theirs. Their decision will determine whether our nation is able to overcome this crisis with logic and reason, or if we continue down the garden path of fascism and totalitarianism.
 
the health care in the usa needs change. I would have opted for a single payer system opposed to the bandaging up that happened.
 
McClatchy said:
Health bill included big Republican idea: individual mandate

The lawsuit against the health care overhaul filed Tuesday by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is focused on a provision that has long been advocated by conservatives, big business and the insurance industry.
The lawsuit by McCollum, a candidate for governor, and 12 other attorneys general, focuses on the provision that virtually all Americans will need to have health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.
The lawsuit calls this an "unprecedented encroachment on the liberty of individuals." It states the Constitution doesn't authorize such a mandate, the proposed tax penalty is unlawful and is an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states."
"The truth is this is a Republican idea," said Linda Quick , president of the South Florida Hospital and Health care Association. She said she first heard the concept of the "individual mandate" in a Miami speech in the early 1990s by Sen. John McCain , a conservative Republican from Arizona , to counter the "Hillarycare" the Clintons were proposing.
McCain did not embrace the concept during his 2008 election campaign, but other leading Republicans did, including Tommy Thompson , secretary of Health and Human Services under President George W. Bush .
Seeking to deradicalize the idea during a symposium in Orlando in September 2008 , Tommy Thompson said, "Just like people are required to have car insurance, they could be required to have health insurance."
Among the other Republicans who had embraced the idea was Mitt Romney , who as governor of Massachusetts crafted a huge reform by requiring almost all citizens to have coverage.
"Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate," Romney wrote in The Wall Street Journal in 2006. "But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian."
Romney was referring to the federal law that requires everyone to be treated in emergency rooms, regardless of their ability to pay.
During his presidential election campaign, Barack Obama was opposed to an individual mandate, preferring instead strong requirements that employers be required to provide coverage. "I'm not sure how ready the country is politically to accept the overall mandate," Irwin Redlener , a Columbia University physician and adviser to Obama, told The Miami Herald during the campaign.
Still, the concept was gathering a strong momentum. The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executives of America's largest companies, supported it in the summer of 2008, thinking it much better than a broad requirement to force businesses of all sizes to offer coverage — something that could increase business costs and make them less competitive.
Others joined the bandwagon, including the liberal Service Employees International Union and the Commonwealth Fund , a nonpartisan nonprofit that studies American health care problems.
In November 2008 , just days after Obama's landslide victory, America's Health Insurance Plans , a trade group, made a stunning announcement, saying it favored universal coverage and supported a law that would stop insurers from rejecting applicants because of preexisting conditions.
"Universal coverage is within reach," the group said in a historic press release.
After being adamantly opposed to reform during the Clinton years, AHIP said it had changed its mind — based on one condition: Any reform plan had to require that all individuals have insurance or pay stiff penalties.
AHIP's reasoning was simple: Many of the uninsured are healthy and under age 35. They either have jobs that don't offer insurance or they didn't pay for insurance because they were certain they wouldn't get sick.
Having this group in an insurance pool spreads risk. Without an individual mandate requiring them to get insurance, Americans could wait until they got sick and then sign up for insurance — a trend that would mean only sick people would be paying premiums while running up huge bills. In this scenario, healthy people would have no need to buy insurance — a financially disastrous situation for insurance companies.
The Obama administration saw that the mandate was the only way to get a reform package passed and it became a foundation of the legislation, along with subsidies for those who couldn't afford coverage.
On Monday, the day after it was passed, McCollum was ready with a press release: "The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty."
Click to expand...

LMAO! The fucktard Republicans asked for something, got it, and then whine and cry around about it, filing a lawsuit. Typical.
 
I think it is most interesting that the potential encroachment on individuals choice has been considered so widely abhorent. I doubt any of the posters would actually consider NOT having a healthcare insurance policy, but the mere suggestion that they will be legally OBLIGED to take one raises everyones hackles.

If only the rampant profiteering of the insurance companies brought about such indignation! No, it is the forcing of an act that everyone does already that really raises the blood pressure.

In many ways this is a strength of the American character and is heartening. In other ways it feels misdirected.
 
headvoid said:
I think it is most interesting that the potential encroachment on individuals choice has been considered so widely abhorent. I doubt any of the posters would actually consider NOT having a healthcare insurance policy, but the mere suggestion that they will be legally OBLIGED to take one raises everyones hackles.

If only the rampant profiteering of the insurance companies brought about such indignation! No, it is the forcing of an act that everyone does already that really raises the blood pressure.

In many ways this is a strength of the American character and is heartening. In other ways it feels misdirected.
Click to expand...

I think there's more backlash at the insurance companys than anyone knows. The problem is, the Republicans are protecting their right to make a profit and therefore their business tactics. The irony is that most of the practices that conservatives claimed were in this bill that were detrimental to the American people, actually weren't in it. Yet they were practices that the insurance companies have been doing to us for decades.
 
Dirk Funk said:
It isn't. There are quite a few things that are dangerous in one application and not in another. Mercury for one. By itself it's massively toxic. You create an amalgam with another metal and it's molecular structure changes. It becomes inert and is used to repair teeth.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point of what I was saying. Saccharin was approved as a food sweetener by both the FDA and the USDA. Yet it's been banned as a a cancer causing agent in most other countries and is still a hot topic of debate in the US. Just because the FDA says something is ok, doesn't necessarily make it so.
 
missmanners said:
Naturally Muslims will be exempt from participating.

;)
mm
Click to expand...

You say that, but illegal immigrants are barred from even participating in the exchanges, where there are no subsidies at all and which exist as a way to facilitate the information on which plans are available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top