except people aren't voting for spending cuts. only tax cuts

and when dems suggest modest cuts in medicare to help pay for increases in other areas, they are crucified for it by supposedly fiscally responsible Republicans.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 6:44 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 6:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2010 6:44:12 PM

what the fuck are you talking about? The Dems didn't propose any real Medicare cuts. They just cut them in one bill and re-introduced them via another. It was all smoke and mirrors

1/19/2010 6:46:37 PM

^^ This for the most part.

John McCain was pretty meh (to me, nothing really stood out about him, but that's just me), but Sarah Palin chased off quite a few moderates, but solidified many conservatives in their choice on voting for McCain.

Obama appealed to the younger demographic, and to be blunt, the black vote. While appealing to many liberals and quite a few moderates.

It's also worth mentioning that part of his campaign was a public option for healthcare. The public option has been taken out, which has frustrated people who support a public option (such as myself), while the rest of the bill makes many conservatives unhappy.

Basically, it's got a few needed changes (depending on who you talk to), but for the most part it fails to deliver for people who voted for Obama and succeeds in upsetting many conservatives.

This is basically my own take of the situation.

[Edited on January 19, 2010 at 6:49 PM. Reason : Dammit, I was referencing aaron's douche and turd sandwich.]

1/19/2010 6:48:18 PM

^^http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medicare+cuts

1/19/2010 6:50:11 PM

If they would have just added comprehensive tort reform they probably could have snagged a good number of GOP votes. I just don't understand why they didn't do this. If anything that would help help the government once they take over healthcare in its entirety. This is a liberals wet dream right? So why are they so opposed to tort reform?

1/19/2010 8:21:48 PM

Quote :

"If they would have just added comprehensive tort reform they probably could have snagged a good number of GOP votes"

are you kidding me? the republican strategy seems clear: vote no for any major piece of legislation and run on the dems' lack of action. it sure seems like a long time ago they were crying for "up or down votes" on things.

1/19/2010 8:28:05 PM

Maybe it seems clear because the dems didn't give them anything they wanted - like tort reform!

Of course, maybe that was the democrat plan all along

1/19/2010 8:35:27 PM

the dems made it clear from the beginning that they didn't need republicans. Hell, they made it clear they didn't want to listen to a single thing the pubs had to say.

Quote :

"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=medicare+cuts"

your point would be? I admit there were "cuts" in the bill. Do you deny that the "cuts" were re-instated in other legislation? Because the truth begs to differ. There were no "cuts," ultimately. That the dems can even hide behind the claim of "reducing the deficit" wouldn't even come CLOSE to holding water if we had a media with a backbone that would simply point out that the 200bill in "medicare cuts" wasn't really cut.

1/19/2010 8:40:59 PM

There were cuts to Medicare Advantage in both houses' plans.

And I specifically remember Rush telling his audience that the sky would fall as a result.

1/19/2010 9:05:44 PM

dude, I'm not denying there were "medicare cuts" in the bills. get with the program

1/19/2010 9:10:02 PM

WTF? I'm still trying to figure this out.

aaronburro: what the fuck are you talking about? The Dems didn't propose any real Medicare cuts. They just cut them in one bill and re-introduced them via another. It was all smoke and mirrors ... There were no "cuts," ultimately.

Boone: There were cuts to Medicare Advantage in both houses' plans.

aaronburro: dude, I'm not denying there were "medicare cuts" in the bills. get with the program


P.S. - I just have to put up this illustrative again (even though some say proves absolutley nothing ). Me thinks they doth protest too much ...



[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 7:27 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 7:16:33 AM

You're missing the sarcastic double quote marks around "medicare cuts" in aaronburro's post. He's making the point that the "cuts" were nothing more than a shell game. In the end the money just got shuffled around and renamed.

This was his argument leading up to the statement:

Quote :

"the claim of "reducing the deficit" wouldn't even come CLOSE to holding water"

Reading comprehension FTW. Go back to grade school

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 7:21 AM. Reason : s]

1/20/2010 7:20:31 AM

Take it up with the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office ... They are the ones that said there would be a deficit reduction (not the spineless media).

1/20/2010 7:30:01 AM

They said there would be a deficit reduction for the next 10 years (which is the farthest out they are allowed to predict).

Strangely enough, the taxes and budget cuts kick in immediately, while the health benefits don't really kick in until most of that 10 years has expired and so the CBO estimate is meaningless. It's almost as if.... Well, its almost as if the democrats rigged the bill so that the 10yr estimate would reduce the deficit. Of course, they're not going to do 7 years cuts and no benefits followed by 3 years of benefits in the 10-20 year period, are they?

Duh... Cut through the spin dumbass. Of course, the spineless media didn't explain this to you, did they.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 7:58 AM. Reason : s]

1/20/2010 7:58:30 AM

You mad?

Actually, I'm mad. I'm pissed off that we spend twice as much as most industrial nations, even though we go to the doctors much less (see graph above).

I'm mad that the number one cause of bankruptcy is medical bills.

I'm pissed off that 15% of the population doesn't even have access to healthcare, other than horriblely expensive emergency room visits.

I find it unbelieveable that this has been a problem for at least 20 yrs and the Republicans have done nothing but wank their dicks and claim the sky will fall if we do anything meaningful about it.

I do feel better now, knowing that the real problem is that everyone (including the CBO) is being duped and there aren't really any healthcare problems in the U.S., other than those that tort reform will solve.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 8:22:47 AM

Quote :

"are you kidding me? the republican strategy seems clear: vote no for any major piece of legislation and run on the dems' lack of action. it sure seems like a long time ago they were crying for "up or down votes" on things."

So we're back to this. It couldn't be that Republicans have a legitimate problem with the terrible legislation the Democrats are churning out. They're just obstructionists, right? The only people that support the current healthcare bill are Democrat cheerleaders that would support just about anything.

Also, we still don't have the money.

1/20/2010 8:34:40 AM

^ I do think that 20 yrs of obstructionism on healthcare issues makes a good case that they aren't interested in changing anything. Lord knows they've had their chance. My only conclusion is that they think the current situation is good enough, and I would tend to disagree with that (see above post).

1/20/2010 8:57:58 AM

I don't think anyone thinks our current system is good enough. Our current system is terrible, mostly because of misguided government intervention. There hasn't been comprehensive "healthcare reform," but there have been plenty of smaller bills pushed through designed to "increase access" to healthcare, "improve the quality" of healthcare, or "lower the cost" of healthcare.

1/20/2010 9:17:40 AM

^ I know, things would be peachy without all of that goverment intervention.

Please do give some examples of all these behind the scenes activities to ...

Quote :

""increase access" to healthcare, "improve the quality" of healthcare, or "lower the cost" of healthcare."

Because from my point of view they have been obstructing everything for the last 20 yrs.

1/20/2010 9:42:26 AM

Well, we can start with Medicare, which wasn't exactly a "small bill," but nevertheless has put us in a very tough position. The idea was that old people were in poverty, and we need a program that will help them pay for health expenses in their later years (increase access). Great intentions, but unfortunately, it's bankrupting us now. End of life care is extremely expensive, and it's mostly paid for by the taxpayer or borrowed money. It isn't sustainable.

As I mentioned before, one of the huge problems is that healthcare is connected to employment. That's due to laws that allow employers to "write off" health benefits provided to employees. COBRA made the problem worse. Now, if someone does have a pre-existing condition and they lose their job, the only way they can be covered is by paying the full cost of the plan, which is generally going to be pretty expensive. There would be no need for COBRA or laws requiring insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions if we allowed people to purchase private plans on a tax free basis.

HIPAA was designed to protect privacy and increase portability. While it may have done some good in protecting private information, it ended up costing a lot of money for those that have to comply with those regulations. That in itself drove up the cost of healthcare, I'm sure. MMA (which included Medicare part D)...absolute catastrophe. It ended up costing the taxpayer a lot more money that was originally projected, and Medicare Part D provides nothing that a private RX plan couldn't provide.

You'll find that Republicans were on board with a lot of this legislation. Nixon stated that he wanted all employers to provide comprehensive healthcare. So, it's not as if Republicans have a history of obstructing any kind of health related bills. They've usually been in collusion with the Democrats.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM. Reason : ]

1/20/2010 10:18:22 AM

yeah Medicare D comes to mind. I oppose it bobo, bc it was irresponsible. We cant afford it, but they passed it, bobo. HSAs come to mind as trying to lower the costs.

I love the excuse of bankruptcy number 1 bc of medical bills. When the average amount is about 13k. Its the excuse, not the root problem. Most owe more on thier CCs and cars.

ANd being able to purchase insurance AFTER you are sick is a disaster. You think insurance is high now, just wait until everyone healthy stops paying for it and only sick people are buying it. I think moving towards HSAs, allowing competition over borders and allowing hospitals to turn away patients due to symptoms, tort reform, and capping the amount spent on medicare/medicaid( and get those funds OUT of the general fund, where it is just pissed away)

^good post

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 10:34 AM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 10:33:01 AM

Quote :

"That's due to laws that allow employers to "write off" health benefits provided to employees. COBRA made the problem worse. Now, if someone does have a pre-existing condition and they lose their job, the only way they can be covered is by paying the full cost of the plan, which is generally going to be pretty expensive. There would be no need for COBRA or laws requiring insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions if we allowed people to purchase private plans on a tax free basis."

I think all medical-related expenses should be tax-free, but getting rid of COBRA won't help with pre-existing conditions. It will only allow insurers to drop families immediately when the insured employee dies or otherwise becomes ineligible.

Quote :

"You'll find that Republicans were on board with a lot of this legislation. Nixon stated that he wanted all employers to provide comprehensive healthcare. So, it's not as if Republicans have a history of obstructing any kind of health related bills. They've usually been in collusion with the Democrats"

Too bad those days are gone. They haven't changed since Newt Gingrich set the agenda in '93: "If the Democrats are for it, we are against it".

1/20/2010 11:34:29 AM

I don't think you gentlemen have a clue. Heathcare savings acounts? Tort Reform? Competition accross state lines. Tax free insurance. I'm afraid it's not enough. As long as my illness negatively affects someone else's bottom line companies will try to get out of paying. There has to be a better approach to national healthcare policy then Darwinism. People have to have access to some minimal amount of healthcare services from birth to death. I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay for it, but that is the idea behind insurance - pay while you're healthy so that you'll have it when you're sick.

I get the impression that your healthcare policies are driven by ideology rather than practical approaches to ensuring that everyone gets the services they need. I just hear a lot of excuses not a lot of realistic approaches - other than let them die if they can't afford insurance.

Quote :

"There would be no need for COBRA or laws requiring insurance companies to accept pre-existing conditions if we allowed people to purchase private plans on a tax free basis."

It's all well and good until someone loses a job and can't afford insurance (and with a 10% unemployment rate it's not unheard of). Now we're back to the pre-existing condition problem.

As far as bankruptcies go, I don't think you've checked your facts: http://blogs.consumerreports.org/health/2009/06/health-care-bankruptcy-on-rise-medical-debt-medical-bills-how-to-avoid-bankruptcy.html

Quote :

" American Journal of Medicine. The researchers found that illness or medical bills contributed to nearly two thirds, or 62 percent, of all bankruptcies in 2007—before the major impact of the housing collapse and current economic downturn. That’s a 50 percent increase over a similar survey in 2001 by the same researchers. As in this case, unaffordable bills directly contributed to 92 percent of medical bankruptcies, and loss of income due to illness caused 40 percent. Many people lose their heath insurance after suffering an illness or injury. A quarter of businesses that offer health insurance cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness, and 25 percent more cancel coverage within a year, according to the study. Just over three-quarters of people who suffered a bankruptcy due to illness were insured at the onset of their health issue. But the total out-of-pocket medical costs for those who had insurance when they became ill was a steep $17,749, on average. For those who didn’t have insurance, the average debt was $26,971. "

As far as Republicans trying to solve the problems, it just hasn't happened much in the last 20 yrs. IRS Codification that employees did not have to pay taxes on their company's contributions to health plans came about in 1954. (It was an IRS ruling, and not legislation by the way.) 1966 - Medicare/Medicaid was passed in 1966. COBRA (signed by Ronald Reagan by the way) was signed in 1985 (10% of people that lose their jobs sign up for COBRA because it's so expensive).

Again, I don't believe you guys have much of anything, other than your ideals.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 12:04 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 12:02:56 PM

You are confusing me with your first point bobo. A HSA is your money and tax free with the protection against major unexpected events. This introduces competition for routine/maintance care and consumers will then dicatate prices, not the govt or insurance companies. Are you suggesting that people do not have access to basic medical needs? I would disagree. There are many charities, free clinic, ERs, drug companies, etc that provide these.

Ill give you a practical example Bobo. I live in a state with over a 3B dollar deficit. In order to close it they are laying off teachers, police, cutting funding to services. Yet, our THREE medicaid programs still cover braces, color contacts, etc. Far from basic and far from necessities. imo But thats govt for you.

I dont see an outpouring of people who cant afford their car insurance when they lose thier job bobo. Besides, losing your job makes all things more difficult to afford, wouldnt you agree? That is actually an incentive to cut back, save while working for emergencies, and find a new job ASAP.

Yeah, 17k, what did I say 13. Sorry. Its not like we are talking 400k. Most people are more in debt than that. Its just it becomes the excuse for some. Are you suggesting that the majority of americans cannot repay 17k?

Oh, and the majority of americans are happy with their level of healthcare. Weird huh

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 1:09:57 PM

Your assertions are no-where near self-evident. Here is an equally plausible argument.

Are you suggesting that people do not have access to basic medical needs? I would disagree. There are many hardly any charities, free clinic, ERs, drug companies, etc that provide these.

Yet, our THREE medicaid programs still cover braces, color contacts, etc. Far from basic and far from necessities All neccesary medical procedures imo But thats govt for you.

Yeah, 17k, what did I say 13. Sorry. Its not like we are talking 400k. Most people are more in debt than that. Its just it becomes the excuse for some. Are you suggesting that the majority of americans cannot repay 17k?

Oh, and the majority of americans are unhappy with their level of healthcare. Weird huh

1/20/2010 1:38:30 PM

I have no problem with health savinges accounts. They are a good idea, as long as people realize they are not the solution to the whole problem.

You seem to equate healthcare with driving, or buying a house, or going out to dinner. You know, with luxuries. I would content that a person's health is fundamentally different.


[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:34 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 2:06:19 PM

when are people going to learn healthcare is a privilege not a right?

1/20/2010 2:21:21 PM

Yeah, just like driving ... They're the same thing ...

1/20/2010 2:39:20 PM

Quote :

"Scott Brown said he expects to be seated quickly in the U.S. Senate, but he was conciliatory on the question of what he will do there, noting that he voted for universal health insurance coverage in Massachusetts and wanted his election to encourage a new bipartisanship in Washington. "We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown told a news conference Wednesday morning. "So to offer a basic plan for everybody I think is important. It's just a question of whether we're going to raise taxes, we're going to cut a half at trillion from Medicare, we're going to affect veterans' care. I think we can do it better." "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012002822.html

Figured this could go here too. It looks, predictably, like health reform may not be dead.

It's weird that the right will squeal about gov. health insurance, but fight to the death to protect medicare. I know this has been pointed out before, but don't understand it. It's like there is something ELSE causing the opposition besides the so-called "small government" ideology...

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2010 2:56:44 PM

Quote :

"It looks, predictably, like health reform may not be dead."

The concept of HC reform isn't dead. Unfortunately, the current iteration has nothing to do with HCR except the name. I, along with many others, would like to see changes made, this bill just isn't it and this congress simply isn't equipped to pull it off.

Frankly, you're going to need a closely divided congress to pull off anything that would be remotely palatable to the US public.

Now, I personally don't think a group of self-interested lawyers whose campaigns are funded by the very companies they're supposed to be regulating, and whose personal interest is in garnering as much power as they possibly can to ensure their perpetual reelection has anywhere near the expertise or motivation to properly fix something they understand very little about, but unfortunately that isn't the majority consensus.

1/20/2010 3:08:43 PM

Quote :

"I, along with many others, would like to see changes made, this bill just isn't it and this congress simply isn't equipped to pull it off."

I don't really buy this line. They've been debating healthcare since the summer.

Unless the republicans really are just sitting around nay-saying, i can't believe that there isn't actual debate and compromises being made.

It looks like Brown might be a supporter of mandatory coverage, which i think is a good idea, as I read about it more. The current bill, with some exceptions, is pretty close to what a good reform package looks like I think.

1/20/2010 3:21:56 PM

What's not to buy? It's straight from the GOP policy book. He doesn't think this congress is "equipped" because Dems have a majority. He's absolving himself from having to cooperate with dems until Congress becomes "equipped" again.

1/20/2010 3:44:45 PM

bobo, medical care is a service just like anything else. Someone has to pay for that service in order for it to survive. Would you agree?

Considering how our leading causes of death are all lifestyle related, I think moving us towards MORE self responsiblity is the answer. That is exactly what HSAs do. Go to whatever doctor you want, get whatever procedures you want. After all, its your money.

I think most dont like the price of this bill and the fact that govt would now control the industry, moron.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

1/20/2010 3:48:17 PM

HSAs are great for the people that use them. The problem I see is that taxes are not applied to all goods and services equally. If we're going to have the tax system we have, we should be taxing health related expenses too. Otherwise, the government just doesn't get enough revenue to pay the bills. That would be fine if the government was limited by their revenue, but seeing as they just borrow/create the money now, it doesn't work. We need more tax revenue.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

1/20/2010 3:54:57 PM

sure, but medical care isnt taxed anyway.

ANd the problem with collecting the taxes, esp with this bill, it just goes into the general fund to be pissed away on other projects. Look no further than SS and Medicare. That is one BIG issue with this bill. imo

1/20/2010 4:04:10 PM

Quote :

"I don't really buy this line. They've been debating healthcare since the summer. Unless the republicans really are just sitting around nay-saying, i can't believe that there isn't actual debate and compromises being made."

Why not? The Democratic Party knew it had one shot to expend all of it's political capital on getting the health care plan they wanted.

Of course the GOP was going to oppose it, they weren't going to have any real power in crafting it in the House at all and only possibly limited power in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi isn't exactly a cuddly bi-partisan Speaker and she drove this agenda for the better part of it's creation.


So you can bitch about an obstructionist GOP, but the DP went for broke and (possibly) came up short.

1/20/2010 4:13:51 PM

some healthcare related fallout from last night. Nelson tries to cover his ass.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2010/January/15/Nelson-Blowback.aspx

1/20/2010 4:22:47 PM

^ the deal for Nebraska should have never been in there. It's good that it's gone.

1/20/2010 6:38:33 PM

^ Agreed.

1/20/2010 7:38:21 PM

its not good that its gone

its a fucking shame and disgrace that it was ever in the first place

and I don't even know what to say about the sniveling senator that only asks for it to be removed when he catches shit for it.

1/20/2010 7:42:10 PM

Quote :

"and I don't even know what to say about the sniveling senator that only asks for it to be removed when he catches shit for it. "

Welcome to America?

1/20/2010 7:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Actually, I'm mad. I'm pissed off that we spend twice as much as most industrial nations, even though we go to the doctors much less (see graph above)."

Assume for the sake of argument, that your graph is more than just a pretty picture that tells us almost nothing. What in the current proposals is going to solve this problem? What part of the current proposals actually addresses the cost of health *care* not health *insurance*?

Quote :

"I'm pissed off that 15% of the population doesn't even have access to healthcare, other than horriblely expensive emergency room visits."

This is just plain wrong. In addition to the fact that even the government acknowledges the fact that their number is very likely inflated (see page 18 [26 of the pdf] http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf) there's also the fact that (as we have been over before) 9 million of those uninsured have incomes >75k and another 9 million are eligible in some way or another for already existing government insurance programs. That doesn't count those that are eligible for employer plans and don't take them, or who are illegally in the country.

Quote :

"I find it unbelieveable that this has been a problem for at least 20 yrs and the Republicans have done nothing but wank their dicks and claim the sky will fall if we do anything meaningful about it. "

And what have the democrats been doing for 20 years? Why can't you see that the politicians aren't interested in fixing this problem.

Quote :

"As long as my illness negatively affects someone else's bottom line companies will try to get out of paying. "

Which is precisely why we should be trying to move as much of the costs of healthcare back to the people are possible. Because then the only people involved in deciding what to pay is you and your doctor.

Quote :

"People have to have access to some minimal amount of healthcare services from birth to death. I'm not saying they shouldn't have to pay for it, but that is the idea behind insurance - pay while you're healthy so that you'll have it when you're sick."

Somehow I think my definition of minimal healthcare services is different from yours and both are different from the government's. As an example, my wife broke her ankle. They could have set it with a closed reduction and let it heal. However, it would heal better if they did surgery to put screws and a plate in the hold everything in place while it heals and then do another surgery to take the screws back out when the bones heal. Would you be happy with defining a closed reduction as the minimum healthcare service?

Quote :

"I just hear a lot of excuses not a lot of realistic approaches "

You should start here: http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=570926

Quote :

"Lumex's "equally plausible argument""

You're wrong though. There are a lot of charities and low cost clinics. Braces and color contacts are almost never medically necessary and yes, I would imagine that most people can afford to repay 17k given that the average cost of a new car in the US is 25k and the average used care purchase is 8k.

1/20/2010 8:36:27 PM

Why? Because you say so?

I'm just sayin'...he needed to back up his position with some evidence.

Also, you shouldn't compare a car purchase to a medical expense. A car is a liquid asset - it can be exchanged for money. Most Americans who are "in debt", have resalable assets attached to that debt. A surgery is not an asset.

1/20/2010 9:31:06 PM

my average plan might be eventually subject to the tax, so I am glad hopefully it will not pass. All the tax will do is reduce benefits or increase premiums (not affect insurance companies at all). ObamaCare wants everyone to have just the basic basic basic plan, not anything special, spread the wealth....etc etc......

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 9:35 PM. Reason : w]

1/20/2010 9:34:41 PM

Quote :

"Also, you shouldn't compare a car purchase to a medical expense. A car is a liquid asset - it can be exchanged for money. Most Americans who are "in debt", have resalable assets attached to that debt. A surgery is not an asset. "

How is that relevant to whether or not they can afford to make pay off a medical debt? The point is, people find ways to buy these things, they should be able to find ways to pay for their medical bills. Now to be fair, most people don't live at all within their means, but thats not my problem.

1/20/2010 9:55:30 PM

Quote :

"Take it up with the (non-partisan) Congressional Budget Office ... They are the ones that said there would be a deficit reduction (not the spineless media)."

seriously, dude. you are worse than dubya. Do you enjoy saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again fucking ignoring whenever someone fucking addresses it? Because it's the fiftieth fucking time you've said that. And your graph? ALSO ALREADY FUCKING DISMISSED BY SIMPLE FUCKING LOGIC.

Quote :

"I find it unbelieveable that this has been a problem for at least 20 yrs and the Republicans have done nothing but wank their dicks and claim the sky will fall if we do anything meaningful about it."

Hey, look, something else you have said over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Keep up the good fucking work, asshat.

Quote :

"There are many hardly any charities, free clinic, ERs, drug companies, etc that provide these."

You are right. Many of them have been driven out by laws against them. Or by gov't programs which cost three or four times as much and end up reaching half as many people...

Quote :

"All neccesary medical procedures"

braces and COLOR CONTACTS are "necessary?" BULLSHIT.

Quote :

" Are you suggesting that the majority of americans cannot repay 17k?"

What is the average price of a car, dude... think about that.

Quote :

"Unless the republicans really are just sitting around nay-saying, i can't believe that there isn't actual debate and compromises being made."

Oh, sure, there was compromise and debate. Among democrats. They wouldn't listen to a thing the Republicans had to say anyway, as witnessed by the myriad number of closed-door meetings, including ones that are going on right now.

Quote :

"Also, you shouldn't compare a car purchase to a medical expense. A car is a liquid asset - it can be exchanged for money."

irrelevant. The point that was posited was that people can't afford a 17k dollar debt. clearly they can. They do it with cars.

1/20/2010 10:44:46 PM

^^ I couldn't disagree more. A car is a luxury. Basic healthcare is not a luxury. And, I'm sorry, but a chronic or catastrophic illness is usually beyound most people's means. It's easy to say, "It wouldn't cost so much if goverment didn't get involved.", but unpayable medical bills are a reality for many ill people. I'll just call your approach "Medical Darwinism".

Quote :

"And what have the democrats been doing for 20 years? "

Huh? Clinton got burned by the Republicans over healthcare. Then the Republicans came in to power and did nothing. Now Obama is facing the Republican flame thrower.

If I had my choice I would adopt something like the Austrailian system. It's a mixed system where both public and private systems coexist - with a basic level of public health care and private options that buy up. The public system is funded with a:

Quote :

"1.5% income tax levy (with exceptions for low-income earners), but mostly out of general revenue. An additional levy of 1% is imposed on high-income earners without private health insurance. As well as Medicare, there is a separate Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that heavily subsidizes prescription medications. In 2007-08, Australia spent 9.1% of GDP on health care, or AUD$4874 per capita.[1]"

But of course, to Republicans think it sounds too much like socialism. To me it sounds like sound healthcare policy.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 10:51 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 10:50:18 PM

Basic healthcare is not that expensive. Get a catastrophic healthcare plan and you will not be bankrupted. It will cost more than beans and rice, but such is life. Or is it "nutritional Darwinism" to expect people to feed themselves for most of their lives?

1/20/2010 10:58:15 PM

Quote :

"I couldn't disagree more. A car is a luxury. Basic healthcare is not a luxury. "

that is irrelevant, dude. you said people can't pay off a 17k dollar debt! you can keep pointing out that one is a luxury and one is not, but both fucking things are still 17k on average. YOU YOURSELF FUCKING SAID SO. it doesn't matter what I bought. both are the same price. You said people can't pay off 17k dollars. clearly they can.

1/20/2010 11:16:55 PM

^^ It is everyone's responsibility to work, and therefore buy their food and shelter. Food doesn't have a "catastrophic" component. When you're sick though, you may not be able to work.

P.S. - 17K won't pay for a day in the hospital.

[Edited on January 20, 2010 at 11:23 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

1/20/2010 11:20:24 PM