Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 5:21 PM:
Feb. 28, 2008
"Both of us [Hillary Clinton] want to provide health care to all Americans. There's a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think the problem is that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it's one that she's tried to elevate, arguing that because I don't force people to buy health care that I'm not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."
Replies (107)
what?
-- Posted by workingdude on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 8:13 PM
Sounds like someting Bill Clinton might have said.
gurus has me in suspense.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 3, 2011, at 11:28 PM
Sorry ... guess I just sort of assumed that everyone would know (or guess) that this is a quote from our president when he was campaigning for the office in 2008.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 12:29 AM
Missed it by that much!
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:04 AM
Mom,
I would have never in my wildest dreams suspested Obama would lie to us....
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:09 AM
Could you speak up. I cant hear well in the back of the bus.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:17 AM
Regret, Are you on the bus headed to the strawberry patch? I hear they are in season there.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:46 AM
I fell off the turnip truck and the bus picked me up......
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:48 AM
WikiLeaks is the reason I don't want the government having my health records.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:50 AM
OOPs. Wrong thread.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 11:51 AM
Nothing from the usual health-care/avid Obama supporters? ... No excuses, no 'well, but ...?' I'm shocked! ~laughing~
-- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 5:46 PM
sad thing is my health plan is not being accepted by many drs or hospitals. I can see it now having to pay for health insurance and NO dr or medical provider accepting it. Cash only and still having to pay premiums for something I can't use. gotta love the guvment, they know how to best spend my money.
-- Posted by mightymo on Fri, Feb 4, 2011, at 8:54 PM
This is clearly Obama boy's way to control his subject's lives. Can you say "REVOLT"? Egyptians can.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 9:17 AM
Hey MO! You can get another health plan. You should know what you are paying for BEFORE you pay your premiums. If you don't like the coverage, change it. You can only blame yourself. By the way, your "guvment" doesn't regard your money as yours to spend. Make no mistake, your "guvment" believes it is theirs. And they havn't the first clue as to how to spend their money "best". They only know how to waste it so they can lay claim to more of "your" money.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 9:22 AM
Forced to buy with what if you don't have any what? Seems Obama has individual citizens' ability confused with the government's ability to spend what it hasn't got.
-- Posted by voyager on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 11:49 AM
This is the plan offered to me at work. Not mine by choice. The government is mandating that employers offer these plans. It was a great plan till the first of this year. Now almost all the drs around here have dropped it. I feel this is their response to the overhaul of the healthcare bill signed by Congress and the President.
I am not naive enough to think I cannot get another plan nor am I am ignorant to not look at what the plan covered when I signed up for it.
Yes I could change plans and pay more of my hard earned money for it and have the same thing pop up next week, month, or year. Then what. If the law says I have to have health insurance or be penalized and I have to go through this mess every month or year then how I have came out ahead?
I agree health care should not force anyone to chose between food, shelter and the basics of life or paying out the wazzoo for health related issues. But is this how we reform health care?
Part of the problem is people sue for anything and that raises insurance on malpractice and our health care premiums. Stop the multimillion dollar awards and maybe they will drop the prices at the drs office. Tuition is another problem. I know 2 people going to med school right now and they will be over a half million dollars in debt when they get out. They are a married couple.
Fewer drs means higher costs.
I was just stating my opinion and you act like I am stupid. Sorry to have p#&* in your cheerios this AM.
-- Posted by mightymo on Sat, Feb 5, 2011, at 4:52 PM
mightymo, When I look back at all the money I have given to insurance companies, I think if I still had that money I wouldn't need insurance.
I have only a couple of happy dealings with insurance. A few years back I got estimates for a new roof and one contracter asked who I was insured with and urged me to call them.
A lady climbed down from the roof and asked me if I wanted her to write the check to the roofing company or to me for the full amount of his estimate. That roof was 20 years old.
When I was 16 I crashed a car and the insurance company paid for the car and all claims before canceling the policy. I paid for the car and all claims via higher premiums to a different company.
When I add up life, health, house, disability, business liability and etc. premiums for all those years, well that is a lot of money!
I hope things work out for you.
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 12:56 AM
Old John
thank you. I remember buying a truck when I was 20 and less than 2 weeks later a car ran a stop sign and totaled the truck out. I paid cash for the truck since I was not married and had a good paying job. 15 bucks a hour in 1985. I had liability only. The other driver had no insurance.
My insurance went through the roof after that. The other driver was at fault, got a ticket, paid a fine and that was it. I had to pay to get my truck fixed. Used parts from a junkyard and still cost 2 grand to get a 3500 dollar truck fixed. My insurance had to pay a ER visit. I refused a ambulance and walked to the ER with busted ribs. Only about a mile there but that was a long mile when you hurt.
Now I may have cancer and still looks like I will be paying all medical out of my pocket. I can't afford to drive to Memphis or St Louis to see a dr. I don't know if they take it or not.
I agree with you. I have paid so much in premiums for the past 31 years now on car, life, homeowners, health etc I would be a millionare if I had that money. I was paying at one time a few years back almost 800 a month and I was only making about 2 grand a month. That is why I went out of business.
-- Posted by mightymo on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 7:16 AM
Thanks Rick for the info.
My problem would be that I would have to take a full day off work without pay for a dr visit if I have to go far off. I could get the same treatment locally and I would prefer that since I have a local dr. I checked online with my insurance and I could not find any in St Louis.
Oh well I guess I will just grin and bear it and bite the bullet and pay out of my pocket. Thanks Obama!
-- Posted by mightymo on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 8:45 AM
mo: why is it Obama's fault your insurance won't pay. Didn't you check to see what medical network they were in before buying. You need to blame yourself for your short comings, not Obama. It seems to me there is more to this story than what meets the eye.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 9:33 AM
Howdy, As I understood Mo's posts, this is his employer offered health insurance, which doesn't give him a lot of shopping around options, as if he was purchasing an individual policy in the market. With diagnosed cancer, even if he could find another policy that would not exclude the pre-existing condition, it would be incredibly expensive because cancer treatment itself is incredibly expensive.
The changes, whether or you think they are good changes, are making things rough on most everyone. Employers will do what is best for their bottom line (most of them), individuals will make the best allocation of their limited resources--in their own opinion--and it is just really tough to make those decisions when circumstances are in flux the way they are right now. The current healthcare legislation is the reason for the flux, so it should be understandable why people get frustrated.
-- Posted by SEMO_Storyteller on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 11:36 AM
howdy I DID check what was covered. As I stated before the drs around here accepted my insurance when I got it through work. After the first of this year they QUIT taking it. I did not decide to have them stop taking it. The healthcare law is starting this year also. I put 2 and 2 together and I wass afraid thay would happen. My spouses insurance went up BIG time and I cannot afford her premiums and since they offer her insurance at her job my insurance will not cover her.
Blame myself how? I read the policies and was happy with the plan until now. I have worked since the age of 14 and I am not 50 yet and I rarely go to the dr. Work always gave us a physical every year free and this is how I found out my condition. I don't smoke and I try to eat right. I am very active and I sure did not ask to be sick. I was worried this would happen under the plan. The medical field is against it and this is how they are going to deal with it.
SEMO you are right my employer is looking at his bottom line. I cant blame them either. But pass a bill that no one knew what was in it and it becomes my fault for not checking my policy according to some.
-- Posted by mightymo on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 12:14 PM
mightymo, I can empathize with your situation as it is somewhat similar to my own. For anything serious, I have to drive to St. Louis, or pay the full freight out of my pocket and yes mine changed the first of the year too; though I am sure it is just a coincidence and accept that I should have been clairvoyant.
-- Posted by Acronym on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 1:24 PM
I go to STL for my visits also. I usually can go there do my appointment and if I need a test I can get that done and be home by the time I get into the doc here. You have to wait weeks to get into the Cath Lab here which is a large profit center, but, is old medicine and kills many patients. Obamacare continues this practice.
I have never waited over 5 minutes to get in to my cardiologist any time of the day up there. My doctor says Obamacare will ruin that also.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 3:43 PM
I ask you people this: Could any or all of the circumstances you describe have taken place without the new health care law, which by the way has not been fully implemented yet? The insurance companies have direct power over you. They have their own built in 'death panels" in case you have not noticed. To blame every inconceivable circumstance on the new health care law is being narrow minded.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 3:46 PM
It doesn't matter if you have insurance or you don't bottom line is no matter what you will be paying out of your pocket.
Last week we took our daughter to an oral surgeon here in cape to get her wisdom teeth removed. The total bill was $2520 of which our insurance will pay $1000 leaving us $1520 to pay out of pocket. My neice used this same oral surgeon 2 months ago and with no insurance the total bill for her getting the same thing done was $1505. Funny that we pay almost the exact amount after insurance that she paid.
We are fortunate that all area doctors accept our insurance but why pay out the premiums if we are still going to end up paying the same amount as those without insurance.
-- Posted by semoangel70 on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 4:35 PM
howdydoody,
Could a jet airliner fall on my house this afternoon, yes it could, but it won't.
-- Posted by Acronym on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 5:05 PM
Received these from a friend today. Have no sources, and they may or may not be accurate. Just thought I would post them for comment, while I go to church this evening and repent for some of the things I said on the golf course this morning.
*How About These Stats!*
A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting
statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health
Organization.
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
*
Check this last set of statistics!!*
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the
private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You
know what the private business sector is ... *a real life business, not a
government job*. Here are the percentages.
T. Roosevelt......... 38%
Taft......................40%
Wilson ....................52%
Harding................49%
Coolidge................ 48%
Hoover................. 42%
F. Roosevelt......... 50%
Truman..................50%
Eisenhower............ 57%
Kennedy.............. 30%
Johnson..................47%
Nixon................... 53%
Ford..................... 42%
Carter.................. 32%
Reagan...................56%
GH Bush................. 51%
Clinton ................. 39%
GW Bush................ 55%
And the winner is:
*
Obama................ 8%*
*
This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of
them have ever worked in private business!*
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19
presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how
to run *their* business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall
Street, and you and me?
How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most
successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business
when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had
one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest
advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or
non-profit jobs or as "community organizers". They should have been in an
employment line.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 6:26 PM
As another reader pointed out most of the previsions of the Health Insurance Reform Law have not gone into effect. It seems to me that many insurance complanies made changes to increase profits while they can.
Doctors and Hospital corporations do not want insurance reform because if cost comes down who's pocket does that money come out of ? The Hopitals, insurance companies and the Doctors. They will be forced to make less money.
My local hospital paid bonuses to employees this year. They pay bonuses every year that they turn a profit which is most years.
-- Posted by Ray James on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 7:10 PM
"if cost comes down"
-- Posted by Ray James on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 7:10 PM
Cost will not come down... you can take that to the bank.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 8:31 PM
There will be less docs. They really don't make that much for jumping though all the hoops when they can go into other fields and get into the workforce faster and start making a dollar.
The brightest will find other avenues to make a living. For the hassle and cost that goes into being a doc you will end up with less docs and lower standards. I have docs in the family. They tell kids to find another field.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 9:05 PM
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 6, 2011, at 10:31 PM
The answer is really simple. Lets just give the government what they want; to cover the cost of all of our medical expenses. Lets cancel our insurance coverages. Remember, liberals say healthcare is a "right". The sign at the hospital says they cannot deny care due to the inabiilty to pay. (a government mandate reason for rising costs). Then lets stop working like many have to and stop paying taxes the have the government send us our monthly checks. Then we can just give up driving our vehicle of choice, save fuel and the environment. I wonder how long that utopia will last? Yea, that is what the administration wants and really believes is possible. So you can either surrender or fight. You make the choice. From a lot of the blog entries, many of you have given up and just want to complain but not do anything about it. So when the next election comes around, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! The Republican house voted to repeal Obamacare when the Democrat senate voted not to. Federal judges have ruled the law unconstitutional, but the elitist Democrats appeal THEIR OWN JUDGES' RULINGS! At this point, the House can defund the revenue to execute the law so it becomes impotent. With a conservative senate and president, the laws can be changed. We should not even be having these discussions but our representatives on both sides have irresponsibly regulated both the health care and insurance industries. The problems paying for health care today are the result. We can change this with reducing the regulatory power of our government to dictate how we spend our hard earned money and how they spend our taxes. Decide on what you want in your government and do something about it.
-- Posted by jadip4me on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 8:43 AM
Yes, Our healthcare is very expensive. We have the best healthcare in the world, and I am willing to pay to have it. I have many friends in many other countries, and, while their healthcare is cheaper, if not free - it is difficult to access, it is not very good, you don't have any choices, etc, etc. some of their countrymen have come here and paid case when they have a serious medical problem. I am willing to work to have insurance and am willing to pay the extra amount for what I need. I am sorry for those who don't have insurance - many of them could get a job. And everyone does indeed have healthcare - the hospitals have to treat you. It may not be great care - but it is available to all.
-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 9:22 AM
Caddy,
With a few minor tweaks to the bill... your son should be able to stay on your health insurance until he is 57.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 10:46 AM
Someone once said that if people had to write a check or pay cash weekly for tax and other withholdings, folks would rise in rebellion.
If everyone had to pay out of pocket for lesser skilled medical services some would not, but those that did would seek competitive pricing that would create a whole new industry to fill the demand.
Look at the dentures in a day places and how routine optometry is competitive.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 11:24 AM
Old John,
Could it be that dental and optometry are not covered on a lot of policies that we have these competitive business where the prices are low?
There are however some people who will not be satisfied until we have this covered by law and the industry regulated to the point where the prices go to 3 times where they are today.
What the liberals/progressives are seeking as I see it is an all encompassing government that takes care of us from the cradle to the grave.
There were systems like that at an earlier time in this country. One readily comes to mind. The person in charge of your community told you where you were going to live, work and eat, based on what your needs and abilities were. Also directed you on how to worship as well. Your job paid you in script that was good only at the government stores. We need to look at this kind of a system really close before we decide it is what we want. For the curious, study the Amana Villages in Iowa and see if this is the kind of life you would really want for your children and grandchildren. Or yourself for that matter. The Amana villages are little more than a tourist attraction these days with a good part of their livelihood derived from it.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 11:45 AM
Yes, Our healthcare is very expensive. We have the best healthcare in the world, and I am willing to pay to have it.
-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 9:22 AM
No argument that we have the best healthcare in the world.
-- Posted by one4kids on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 9:40 AM
By what measure do we have, "the best healthcare in the world?" While it is true that we have the most expensive healthcare in the world, (According to the WHO, the U.S. spends more per person than any two other developed countries combined on healthcare, this includes government spending on universal healthcare) but we are only average when it comes to longevity and infant mortality in the developed world.
We don't live longer, we're not healthier, and we're not more likely to survive past childbirth. So what are we getting for our money? How does paying double and getting less equate to us having, "the best healthcare in the world?"
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM
I would suspect that our "not living longer" and "we're not healthier" is more due to our lifestyles than how good our healthcare is or is not.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 12:37 PM
DTower,
Why do you suspect it is that in a country where healthcare is cost prohibitive, people are less likely to understand the consequences of their lifestyle?
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 1:41 PM
It's not that the people in this country are less likely to understand the consequences of their lifestyles. The people of this country have access to all the information that they need. The fact of the matter is that the people just don't seem to care about the consequences of their lifestyles. Every soccer mom in this country knows that fast food is not a healthy meal, but when mom has to get the kids to soccer practice and then rush to a meeting, the kids are getting Mickey D's, their health be damned. Dad knows for a fact that riding his bicylce to work everyday is the healthy choice, but dad is going to choose the convenience of driving the car to work, his health be damned. Etc., etc., etc.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 1:54 PM
Dades wrote:
"Why do you suspect it is that in a country where healthcare is cost prohibitive, people are less likely to understand the consequences of their lifestyle?"
They are separate issues, wiht separate groups advocating for each. Many Americans believe in freedom, including the freedom to engage in risky behaviour, the freedom to live unhealthy lifestyles, and the freedom to do stupid things.
There are others who view healthcare as 'cost prohibitive', and they blame that freedom for the impact it is having on their wallets. They advocate for a nationalized system which will not only spread the costs of healthcare across a broader spectrum, but will also give them inroads towards regulating that freedom, and eventually mandating 'healhty lifestyles' for those who currently enjoy the freedom to not live them, should they choose.
This has played out before. Many did not believe in wearing seatbelts, just as many do not believe in wearing motorcycle helmets. By putting society in charge of paying for their care, they created an inroads towards controlling such behaviour. It should be no-one eleses business if you choose to kill yourself but, since society has deemed it their obligation to pay for the cost of patching you up should you fail, so they determine they have a right to curtail your freedom to kill yourself.
Such 'babysitting laws' are anti-freedom, yet we accept them more and more because of the impact such actions have on the financial obligation of which society has chosen to assume the burden. The more obligations society assumes, the more encroachments on freedoms they claim as part and parcel of that obligation. They now believe they have the right to make all Americans buy something that many Americans did not want to purschase. So much for the 'land of the free and the home of the brave'.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 2:05 PM
Careful Rick
With statements like that, someone is going to accuse you of being intellegent!!
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 3:25 PM
DT,
Rick isn't fooling me... I would say he is smarter than a host of the posters on here, me included.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 3:47 PM
It's not that the people in this country are less likely to understand the consequences of their lifestyles.
-- Posted by DTower on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 1:54 PM
I believe they are less likely to understand. When healthcare is affordable, people are more likely to take advantage of it and thus are more aware of the consequences of their lifestyle. You're more likely to learn about your high blood pressure or cholesterol from a routine doctor visit rather than after your first heart attack.
It's one thing to hear the McD's isn't healthy and you should limit your visits, it's another to have a doctor tell you that your BP and cholesterol are through the roof and will result in permanent damage if you don't change your lifestyle immediately.
______________
Shapley,
I'm not arguing whether or not it is a slippery slope. I'm merely wondering why people keep insisting that we have the best healthcare in the world when it seems like we are paying for a Ferrari but only getting a Ford Focus.
As I said earlier, we don't live longer; we don't have lower infant mortality rates, etc. but we do pay more than any other country. Why do people think that because we pay more, it must be somehow better?
The only area we really excel in is emergency care. Our ER's are like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise compared to what's found in many other countries (even the developed ones). But that is because, as I stated above, since doctor visits tend to be cost prohibitive you are more likely to learn about your high cholesterol after your heart attack rather than when it could have been prevented. So ER's are more of a necessity in this country.
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:07 PM
The House voted to repeal it, but the Senate, still in control of the Democrats, failed to do so. Nor was it passed by a veto-proof margin, so it will not get repealed.
What now has to happen is to start passing legislation to undo parts of it, while fixing what needs to be fixed. Basically, we can make the legislation meaningless if we can pass legislation which does what this one should have - address the causes of rising health care costs rather than forcing people to finance health care inflation.
Meanwhile, we still have the legal challenges running.
There's no sense dwelling on a repeal now, the House has done its part, shame on the people for not tossing out enough Senators...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:12 PM
Wheels, I wholeheartedly agree. (Always get a kick out of his posts)
Therefore, I hereby annoint Dr. Rick Thd. (Doctor of Thinkology), Professor Emeritus, Speak Out State University, with all of the rights and privileges thereof. (including tenure and cute grad assistant). Congratulations Dr. Rick!!
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:18 PM
but we are only average when it comes to longevity and infant mortality in the developed world
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 12:02 PM
That is because we report all of them as they should be.
How high is it going to be when this new generation starts to die early because of childhood obesity caused by the Democrats?
I also suggest you go back and read wheels Feb 6 at 6:26 PM post.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:27 PM
Next thing you know, they'll start forcing us to buy car insurance or give them a chunk of our takehome pay or purchase only what they approve at the price they've manipulated.
These buffoons must be exposed for the malignance they represent. They balance of their behavior is genocide.
-- Posted by uberfan20 on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:33 PM
Dades wrote,
Having 'the best health care' is not synonymous with having 'the best value in health care'. I don't think anyone's saying our health care system is a bargain, quite the opposite.
If we are, indeed, getting a Ford Focus at Ferrari prices, it does not diminish the fact that it is a Ford Focus in a Tuk-Tuk world. Other nations may have Ford Anglias and Citroens but, on average, we offer the best health care per capita, methinks, than do other nations. Every nation has its horror stories.
It's not the health care system's fault that many people don't take care of themselves. The Health Care system may give you the anti-biotics you need, but they can't force you to take them. The Health Care system can tell you to lose weight, but they can't make you loose weight. Does that failure mean the health care system is inadequate? I say 'No'.
We're dying young because we're killing ourselves. The proponents of 'social responsibility' think it is somehow society's responsibility to stop us from doing so. It isn't.
We all know the score. We don't know graphic images on cigarette packs to know they are unhealthy. They make us sick the first time we smoke them, but some people keep on until they 'get used to them'. If they won't listen to their own bodies, what makes anyone think they'll listen to the Surgeon General? People watch their own family members die of lung cancer, and then sit around the funeral smoking cigarettes while they talk about what a tragedy it was. Whose fault is that?
There is one serious flaw I see with our medical system: we are drug culture.
We eat unhealthy, and we take drugs for things that should be fixed by a change in diet or exercise, and we demand that everyone else ante up the cost for those drugs, because they're 'too expensive'. Wal-Mart provides motorized shopping carts so that lazy people can buy their junk food without actually having to walk 100 feet through the store.
Some doctors are naught put pill-pushers. Drug stores line our streets, occupy our supermarkets and retail stores - selling drugs the way the drug stores of old sold candy. Commercials taughting the benefit of the latest drug fill the airwaves, telling us that we need to ask our doctor if Dammitol is right for us. How many doctors' say 'no, it isn't'? I have to wonder. And, if your doctor says 'no', do you go shopping for another doctor that'll say 'yes'? Methinks many probably do. They sure seem to sell a lot of Dammitol, despite the long list of potential side-effects including, in rare instances, death. What's a little death, eh? We can handle the bloody stools and painful urinations as long as the Dammitol will keep us from actually having to exercise and eat right, no?
And, of course, there are the lawsuits.
Doctors fill out handicapped parking permits for people who they know really need to be walking the extra distance. Why? They fear being sued if
someone dies of a heart attack because they had to walk an extra forty feet.
The proponents of Universal Heath Coverage don't like to discuss these things. It's all about the money to them. Never mind that people are medicating themselves to death or fattening themselves up for the kill, the problem they see is that some of them are going broke before they succeed in dying.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:40 PM
I also suggest you go back and read wheels Feb 6 at 6:26 PM post.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:27 PM
Yeah, a friend of mine sent me that link a while back. Investor's Business Daily is most renowned for claiming that IF Stephen Hawking were British and had to rely on the UK's health system he wouldn't be alive today. Of course Stephen Hawking is British and still to this day relies on the UK's health system for his numerous health problems.
So apparently Investor's Business Daily isn't exactly a bastion of journalistic knowledge or integrity but feel free to continue forwarding their spam.
________________
The proponents of Universal Heath Coverage don't like to discuss these things. It's all about the money to them. Never mind that people are medicating themselves to death or fattening themselves up for the kill, the problem they see is that some of them are going broke before they succeed in dying.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 4:40 PM
Of course it is all about the money. You can charge more for a pound of cure than you can for an ounce of prevention.
What the Opponents of UHC don't like to talk about seems to be the general well being of those who use UHC. They tend to be healthier than us and have lower healthcare costs. Who could possibly oppose that? Oh yeah, people who read Investor's Business Daily.
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 5:08 PM
Still never got a single answer from an Obamacare supporter. If it's so good, then WHY ARE ALL THE UNIONS GETTING OUT WITH WAIVERS? No one can answer that question.
It isn't good! It will cost more, limit coverage and bankrupt the country.
On another note, do some research. How much longer do the evil, wealthy people in the US live (on average) than the rest of us? You'll be surprised...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 5:36 PM
While I do agree that everyone should have some kind of health insurance, they shouldn't be forced to buy it under penalty of law. Simply said, survival of the fittest should apply. Allowances can be made by healthcare givers for those that can't pay the going rate. All I would like to know is,if it isn't constitutional to force citizens to buy health insurance, how can it be constitutional to force them to buy auto insurance?
-- Posted by dnthere51 on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:11 PM
What the Opponents of UHC don't like to talk about seems to be the general well being of those who use UHC. They tend to be healthier than us and have lower healthcare costs. Who could possibly oppose that? Oh yeah, people who read Investor's Business Daily.
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 5:08 PM
Or people that want the best care without waiting a year to get help.
Were is your source Dades? Lets see the data.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:58 PM
You have a choice to exercise your PRIVILEGE to drive (not your right to drive). If you want to drive, you have to buy insurance. If you don't want to drive, don't buy insurance. That's the explanation that I've been given. On another note:
I like the South Dakota legislature's latest law. It will require everyone in the State to buy a handgun when they turn 21. Some say what they have done is a waste of time because it's not constitutional to force someone to buy a handgun at 21. They did it for one reason. To prove that
IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL TO FORCE SOMEONE TO BUY ANY PRODUCT - INCLUDING HEALTH INSURANCE!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:00 PM
You can prove anything with statistics, but they are certainly bent when it comes to this healthcare argument. Do we have poor longevity and high infant mortality rate? Who knows. We are in a country that reports everthing. Hardly anyone is born or dies in this country that is not recorded. Rarely does an infant die that is not recorded. I most other countries, including those that we consider progressive and industrialized, large numbers of infants die and are buried in the back yard, with no report. Grandpa dies at 60 and they pot him in the garden. I and many of my friends have done quite a bit of traveling. You meet ancient looking men in Spain, and find out they are 50. You talk to women who have had 5 or 6 children die in childbirth, with no record. Numbers mean nothing unless everyone is using the same methodology. Our healthcare system is excellent. Every major advance in healthcare has come out of this country. And, if you do want to see a statistic that would startle you, look at the number of patients who die from surgeries or hospitalizations in other modern countries. I think I will stay here. Thank you.
-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:20 PM
Dades wrote:
"What the Opponents of UHC don't like to talk about seems to be the general well being of those who use UHC. They tend to be healthier than us and have lower healthcare costs. Who could possibly oppose that? Oh yeah, people who read Investor's Business Daily."
So, now anyone who opposes Universal Health Care automatically reads Investor's Business Daily? Boy, do you ever leap to conclusions...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:49 PM
Whether or not our health care system is the best in the world is really a moot point. The one thing we know, or ought to know, is that it has gotten progressively more expensive even as the government has intervened more and more to make it less so. Some will argue that it is getting more expensive despite the government's efforts but many, myself included, believe it is getting more expensive because of it.
As I've said, we all know how to live healthier lives, but we choose not to do so. The only way a Universal Health Care System could change that is to force us to live a government-prescribed healthy lifestyle, and that is not consistent with our views of freedom. But that is the goal of the promoters of government-run health care, as I noted before.
"A government that takes control of the economy for the good of the people ends up taking control of the people for the good of the economy." - Bob Dole -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 8:00 PM
Or people that want the best care without waiting a year to get help.
Were is your source Dades? Lets see the data.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 6:58 PM
Only poor people in America have wait times that long.
Someone once said, "there are lies, d*mn lies, and statistics" or something to that effect. I prefer to rely on common sense, which unfortunately isn't all that common. But if you want a few sites to peruse in your spare time here are a couple.
Both these sites get much of their info from the WHO and site other sources.
_______________
We are in a country that reports everthing. Hardly anyone is born or dies in this country that is not recorded.
-- Posted by ParkerDaws on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:20 PM
So you believe we are the only saints in a world full of sinners? Everyone lies but us? The WHO does take this into account and adjusts their statistics accordingly.
_________________
So, now anyone who opposes Universal Health Care automatically reads Investor's Business Daily? Boy, do you ever leap to conclusions...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 7:49 PM
Yeah but you said, "Never mind that people are medicating themselves to death or fattening themselves up for the kill, the problem they see is that some of them are going broke before they succeed in dying." So I thought we were taking turns making broad, irrational generalizations.
Shapley said: "Whether or not our health care system is the best in the world is really a moot point."
We have the best healthcare in the world is a refrain I often hear when the subject of UHC comes up and it was used a couple of times in this thread so I don't believe it is a moot point. As with the case of the writer who thought that Stephen Hawking couldn't survive in the UK, people tend to believe misinformation if it conforms to their preconceived notions.
You said
Shapley said: "we all know how to live healthier lives, but we choose not to do so. The only way a Universal Health Care System could change that is to force us to live a government-prescribed healthy lifestyle."
Sooooooo, is it my turn now to make another baseless generalization? Or do you honestly believe there is no correlation between accessibility of healthcare and health?
-- Posted by DADES on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 9:51 PM
Dades
You site marvels at the Greek system. You know the one that is bankrupt. Is changing health care worth bankrupting a country?.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 10:24 PM
Methinks some get health care, medical services and insurance mixed up discussion wise although "Obama Care" as it is called by some will literally mix it up to mess it up worse.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 7, 2011, at 11:18 PM
Dades wrote:
"Or do you honestly believe there is no correlation between accessibility of healthcare and health?"
Once again, you seem to assume that a lack of insurance is synonymous with a lack of health care. If, indeed, preventative care is so much cheaper than restorative, it would behoove the people to get themselves to the doctor for preventative care. But they don't. Often not because they can't afford it, but because they don't want to spend their own money on it. Many people don't want to give up their luxuries in order to pay for a couple hundred dollars in doctor's fees, so they don't go.
Doctors, for their part, have been accomodating of people. They have extended-hour clinics and walk-in clinics, they take VISA and Mastercard. They don't turn people away because they don't have insurance, and the insurance companies aren't blocking the door to keep people from entering there.
You don't even need to go to the doctor to change your diet, or to exercise. Are you seriously suggesting that a broad spectrum of our society doesn't know that their obesity, their smoking, or their lack of exercise is bad for them?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 8:03 AM
Dades wrote:
"Or do you honestly believe there is no correlation between accessibility of healthcare and health?"
I honestly believe there is no correlation between accessibility of insurance and health.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 8:07 AM
I agree.
When you call a Dr office to make a new patient appointment for the first time they ask what insurance you have. If you say CASH, they make your appointment ASAP. If you say "Workmen's Comp" you get rushed into the "gold option" treatments and they roll out the red carpet. If you mention any number of what is considered "good" insurances you get in sometime that month. If you name Medicare/Medicaid then you wait 3 months.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 10:14 AM
You don't even need to go to the doctor to change your diet, or to exercise. Are you seriously suggesting that a broad spectrum of our society doesn't know that their obesity, their smoking, or their lack of exercise is bad for them?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Feb 8, 2011, at 8:03 AM
Just spoke to a friend of mine about 30 minutes ago, who spent 50 years in a pharmacey, with his Father and then owning the business. Pretty informed on health care I think.
He just told me his doctor asked him on his last visit... Do you want to live to be 90? His answer was not if I have to listen to that you need to quit smoking and loose some weight talk that I have been hearing for over 50 years.
I think he is just one more proof that yes people know some things are unhealthy for them, but they are going to do them anyway. Because they either enjoy doing them, they cannot quit or they simply do not give a ****.
Why cannot we leave them alone to their own devices... it is none of our business.
And now the president's wife wants to make her signature item the sticking of her nose into the private business between a restaurant owner and his/her cusomers.
As for me Mrs. Obama, unless you plan on incarcerating and force feeding me, I intend carrying on pretty much as I have the last 70 odd years. Your legacey be damned!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 11:51 AM
I remember going out to dinner back in the '70s. Portions were small and we complained about how little we got for the money. Unless you went to one of those few 'all you can eat buffets', you frequently left the restaurant hungry. There were many jokes about it back then.
Fast food restaurants offered '1/4 pound' burgers as a special, that was the equivalent of 'supersizing' back then.
When the '80s rolled around, and we were more prosperous, restaurants responded to the customers' complaints, and began to offer bigger portions - sometimes much bigger portions. the 1/4 pound burger became the standard, as they began to offer 1/3 pound and 1/2 pound burgers, large fries, and then extra large fries.
Steak houses, that used to offer 8 oz. steaks as the normal, began to offer 10 oz, 12 oz, and 16 oz, steaks on the menu. The potatoes got bigger, too, as did the salads. And the bread keeps coming.
It's not the restaurant's fault - they are giving us what we demanded - more for the money. All-you-can-eat buffets are common, as are all-you-can-eat salad bars at the restaurants that don't do buffet dinners. Nor are the salad bars limited to salads - they offer chicken wings and pudding and enough meat items to make the salad a meal in itself. All-you-can-eat dessert tables are not uncommon, either.
But, like yourself, I have no idea why the federal government feels the need to involve themselves in this - except that they've offered to pick up the tab for the health consequences of it. There's the rub - first they proclaim that "drinks are on the house", and then they start limiting what you can drink "because it's on their dime". They never should have offered to pick up the tab if they didn't think they could pay it, unless their goal was to get us drinking their brand all along, methinks...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 12:08 PM
"As for me Mrs. Obama, unless you plan on incarcerating and force feeding me, I intend carrying on pretty much as I have the last 70 odd years. Your legacey be damned!"
And worse yet, they serve the fattest, high-carb food at their super bowl party at the white house. That's the biggest problem I have with liberals like them. Do as I say, not as I do...
I don't need another set of parents. Especially with their values!
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 12:34 PM
Shapley,
I am not big on all you can eat buffets, preferring to sit down and have a meal served to me. And quantiy in food is not as important as quality. I do not want some substitute used to prepare my shrimp scampi, I want them to use butter the way they always have. Also want butter for my toast or bread instead of some "spread". Restaurants that do not serve real butter are off my list of places to eat.
I object to someone telling me what I have to eat based on the fact that she needs to leave a legacy and a name for herself. A rear view of the first lady makes one think she may not be following her own advice.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 2:09 PM
Do as I say, not as I do...
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 12:34 PM
Pretty much covers it I think.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 2:11 PM
We Americans could stand to learn a little moderation. However, a look at the government's financial figures leaves me to believe they are not the ones to teach it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 2:43 PM
"A rear view of the first lady"
Does that mean you keep an eye on the "women's movement"? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 10:58 PM
Old John,
In some cases yes... but not in hers. The thought did cross my mind that a few sessions down at the gym wouldn't hurt her any.
And with that I think I will let the case rest. Before I get a bunch of OW's on my behind.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 11:42 PM
Wheels, I hear about a British woman that had hers injected with silicon and died trying to look more that way.
I too will leave it at that.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Feb 9, 2011, at 11:50 PM
Old John,
You better pack up and head south for a couple of weeks like Regrets did. Had some really fine seafood etouffee this evening. After a half dozen oysters on the half shell.
And there is next to no chance of snow.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:09 AM
In keeping with the day late and $ short thing that seens to fit, we plan a sibling reunion, Texas in May.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:20 AM
Old John,
For reunions you need to consult with Regrets. I think he likes goat for reunions and I am sure he could give you some pointers. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:24 AM
Getting someone's goat has great satisfaction when you can have your goat and eat it too.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:43 AM
"Wheels, I hear about a British woman that had hers injected with silicon and died trying to look more that way"
You would think Britain's National Health System could have killed her there, rather than making her fly all the way here to get toxic chemicals injected in her butt. Must of just eat the toxic chemicals, and let them find their own way to enlarging our body parts. Some people have no patience, it seems.
Are outpatient proceedures conducted in the room of a motel covered under Obamacare?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:43 AM
The democrats are worried about the repeal of Obama Care. Steve Cohen accused republicans of repeating lies in the fashion of Nazis and many are restarting the vitriol toward Clarence Thomas, saying he should recuse himself from any ruling on the contsitutionality of the bill.
Get ready to see media ads about how the new policies are saving folks form immediate death and how republicans want to force poor people watch their children die due to lack of health care for pre existing conditions.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 4:54 PM
I hope your right Old John. It's time the truth be told by the media. Much to your disappointment, Obamacare is gaining in popularity. Maybe not the whole bill but a lot of the sections are very popular.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 5:30 PM
For reunions you need to consult with Regrets. I think he likes goat for reunions and I am sure he could give you some pointers. :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 12:24 AM
In Texas you catch the cow, split it open, and put it over a fire on a spit. Goats are too small.
BTW the only section people like is keeping their bum kids on their healthcare policy until they are 26 so they dont have to look for a real job. That is a long time and companies will have to pay for it.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 6:09 PM
The only section, huh? Where do you come up with all this stuff. Give some references. You need to brush up on that section so you can make an informed comment. So far all you have is hyperbole my friend.
-- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 8:54 PM
Ok Howdy,
Regrets gave no references, nor did you when you made your broad statement, which was contrary to something I heard yesterday on the percent of people opposed. And where the hurt is going to come in for Obama, Independants are not pleased with Obamacare. The very people he will need if he hopes to win re-election.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Feb 10, 2011, at 10:31 PM
"...help the insurance commerce re-coup any losses it may incur during coverage of pre-existing conditions and children until they are 26 years old and other health care issues...."
---------------------
For there to be such a series of false statements, misinformation, and delusions, the effort has to be intentional, no one can draw so many ignorant conclusions purely accidentally.
Requiring coverage for the currently uninsured is not to "recoup any losses." I t is to provide a broader base to spread risk to a wider population. Insurance companies have new rules to follow, such as covering up to 26 year olds, eliminating prohibitions for pre-existing conditions, not being able to drop coverage due to claims being made, etc.
I do not believe that the intent ever was for these added services to be provided at no cost. Coverage for a 21 to 26 year old will be paid for by your premium, but at least you can get it, whereas before you might not or would have to take out a separate policy. If you have a pre-existing condition your premium will be higher, but at least you can get it, whereas before you might not be able to.
If the current health insurance companies can't figure out how to make the new rules work, they can go out of business, and more nimble and efficient companies will take their place. That sounds like the free-market at work to me.
Also, I have yet to see any real numbers from anyone on how their insurance premiums have changed. I know my Medicare premiums have not changed, if the y do go up somewhat in the future, that's something I can live with. There is no doubt that commercial insurance will go up in price also, and the company will likely blame in on the new health care insurance law, whether it's true or not. If you premiums go up too much, find another company that provides better coverage at lower cost.
This whole issue is continually being depicted as the end of the medical world as we know it, and I have yet to read anything from anyone with factual figures on what this has cost them, and what additional benefits they have received.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 1:13 PM
The original post pointed out that president Obama was skeptical of mandatory coverage purchase by all. But that was only during the primary contest against Hillary Clinton, and his dismissal of the concept was purely political and mainly grounded in being against it because she was for it, and there was never any irrational claim of it being unconstitutional.
Going back in history a bit further, it is clear that the individual mandate was a long time Republican initiative. Influential Republicans such as Dole, Lugar, Grassley, Hatch, Helms and Lott were all in favor of it before they were against it. The individual mandate was a central feature of Republican health-care thinking. In addition to that, the current Republican front-running presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, included the individual mandate in the Massachusetts plan, so he was clearly in favor of it then. None of the numerous Republican proponents ever considered it "unconstitutional" until it passed as law.
As mentioned, they were for it before they were against it. As of about a year ago, Grassley told Fox News that there was a "bi-partisan" consensus in favor of the individual mandate. he said, "That's individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility."
Only after the new health care law passed, did Republicans decide to try to convince the courts that the individual mandate represented something new and unprecedented.
It would seem totally out of character for the Republicans to attempt to get the courts to overturn something that Congress passed and the majority of Americans favor. In a January, 2011 poll only 41% opposed it, and 59% approved it as is or with improvements. Even among Republicans support for repeal has dropped from 61% to 49% now.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 10:43 AM
Insurance on your parents health care plan until you are 26.... why 26? Why no make it 62, then they would only have 3 years to purchase their own before going on medicare?
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 12:28 PM
where do you come off thinking that just because you still have healthcare coverage for your child that they have to be bums who don't have a job. My son is working on a degree and has a job nimwit
Posted by cadillacman on Fri, Feb 11, 2011, at 10:59 A
Oh now I am a nimwit because I am tired of paying for a bunch of deadbeats under the order on Bozo Obama. I had a plan instead of living day to day and mother government wants to milk me for my retirement when I am coming to the time to need it.
I have about four nieces and nephews that will ride it for what it is worth. They prefer to suck the government teat or the big mean corporations for every drop instead of getting a real job. I raised my kids not to depend on someone else while others show their kids how to steal money from hard workers.
If they stay in school they should be done with their BS by age 21 and a masters is two years past that. But age 26 is crazy. I was on my own by 18. We have gotten a notice we will be charged more for children on our policy next year or we can cut them from our policy. That is to make up for the mandate.
Nothing is free. Someone has to pay and the people that played to game as they should have now has to make up for the leeches.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 3:23 PM
Beg to differ a little, Wheels: "... Independants are ... The very people he will need if he hopes to win re-election." 93% of the Black Vote ... the majority of the Hispanic Vote ... the majority of the Welfare Vote ... Unfortunately, our voting system sort of comes down to the liberal question of 'What will the candidate give our 'group' for little or nothing that the 'more fortunate' will pay for?'
Wow! One of those surprising comments that actually makes some honest common sense: "... president Obama was skeptical of mandatory coverage purchase by all. But that was only during the primary contest against Hillary Clinton, and his dismissal of the concept was purely political ..." Saying that our candidates will say ANYTHING in order to get elected, whether or not they mean it or believe it themselves? I salute you for this comment.
And this ... "In a January, 2011 poll only 41% opposed it, and 59% approved it as is or with improvements. Even among Republicans support for repeal has dropped from 61% to 49% now." proves only that apathy always tends to sway poll figures as people realize they don't have any control over our politicians ... as in, okay, we give up. 2,000+ pages, and all we really know is less than a tenth of it ... including our representatives in government. If that doesn't worry anyone, then I'd have to say they're ... um ... lost in a world of blind faith and trust.
Thanks, Regret.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Feb 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
This is happening.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 12:56 AM
I've read that, but forgotten who said/wrote it.
Being old makes me more aware of the changes in our country, in our government. What was initially intended has gradually fallen by the wayside, as more and more governance has been intstituted ... mainly to appease certain groups of citizens.
The old saying, "It's the American Way" seems to have taken on an entirely different meaning than it had several decades ago.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 4:50 AM
Theorist,
That may be the way you and your big governmenet, all controlling group see it, but I believe Mom is right on. That is if the numbers are correct. However I think she used Common's numbers which are contradictory to another report I heard this past week, stating Obamacare's most worrisome numbers for the president are coming from the Independants. Of course by your own statement, you are an Independant.... right?????
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 8:32 AM
I tend to believe I am an independent, not an independant! I have never voted a straight ticket, I always vote for the person regardless of their political affiliation.
Your point is????
Never mind, your point was to defend by attack...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 2:49 PM
Sugar, when you make statements like the one of yours I am posting below, you shouldn't be correcting others.
Wait until you can understand the difference between words like your, you're and you are.... then correct me.
And my point was I think your assumption was incorrect. Kapeesh? ('Capisce' if you prefer)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 3:26 PM
Theorist,
That was a weak effort to try and cover up for an embarassing mistake even for you.
Movies were not the topic when you made the statement, cell phones being mistaken for guns were. Almost anything that can ever been said can be found in a movie somewhere if you look hard enough. If that would have been the case, you would have quoted the person and the movie.
Nice try... I'm not buying.
"Go ahead... make my day" Clint Eastwood.
Quotes and credit given. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 5:03 PM
but let's not put any more alarmist and false ideas into other people's minds, ok?
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 8:04 AM
You need to tell Obama and the Democrat party that.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 6:03 PM
I sure wish you kids wouldn't fight...
-- Posted by Acronym on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 6:28 PM
Acronym,
:-) :-) :-) :-)
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 6:54 PM
... we are force to buy car insurance, and I can name many more PARAs. Many don't realize (or do not want to talk about it) we already pay for the uninsured by; hospitals jumping up the cost of the insured or the ones who pay out of pocket, by our premiums employees and employers pay each month/pay check. Lots of sinners out there now days willing and eager to through that stone at someone. enough said on this topic... you all have beat this horse to death.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 9:21 PM
you all have beat this horse to death.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 9:21 PM
So we should lay down and let the liberals FORCE their way on EVEYONE. I say to h*** with Obama's change. It isn't working.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Feb 13, 2011, at 9:41 PM
Apologies for: "... proves only that apathy always tends to sway poll figures ..." I SHOULD have said something like ... 'in my opinion, thinking back to various other laws which the majority were against but were instituted anyway, it certainly SEEMS like some type of apathy that after all attempts to scrap the 'plans' failed, the citizens gave up ...'
One of the reasons I voted for Obama was due to his promise of health care, AND due to the quote in this forum. Basically, he lied ... In all fairness, though ... If he had been more involved in writing it, or in 'editing' it ...
Some reasons I am against this health care bill have been stated before: It's too long, too convoluted, too full of special-interests (Can we say 'waivers?'), leaning too far from our constitution, too expensive (the CBO has changed 'estimates' pro-and-con several times ... possibly because they have been unable to comprehend it all?). You just cannot wrap your mind around something that (as far as I know) not a single one of our representatives who voted pro/con have admitted to actually reading AND understanding it ... almost certainly they didn't 'struggle' as much as I have to comprehend even those small portions of it that have been the popular 'talking points' ... which amount to perhaps less than 1/10th of it.
In all that, Theorist, knowing why I don't want the bill ... I really am interested in knowing the reasons why you are FOR it?
As far as "we elect them" ... What I said: We have no control over them once they are in office (heck, we don't even 'fire' those 'convicted' of major ethics violations) ... i.e., the poll numbers showed disapproval of the health bill but they passed it anyway. Think about it. Despite the intelligence of most posters on these forums, the average American doesn't seem smart enough to vote intelligently. Mainly they vote name-recognition, party-affiliation, or on personal issues ...
Hospital costs rise due to non-insurance patients who aren't forced to pay? Wait until all insurance premiums rise (some already have) ... then even those who don't need hospitalization will be 'sharing the cost.' Ever read anything about insurance companies' lobbyists concerning the health care bill? Seems to me ... hmm ... they were lobbying for it. What does that tell us?
Straighten up, Wheels ... You just gotta get your spelling correct! I'll go to sleep smiling smugly about that, you know.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 3:45 AM
Certainly did Theorist. Sooo? Saw the movie years ago and wasn't that crazy about it. And I'm still not buying it. To be credible, when you say something out of character, someone needs to be credited when you said it. I can always scratch around and find an example to support my screwups if I look hard enough.
Your explanation "doesn't make any sense".
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 10:17 AM
dissembling
Definition
disˇsemˇbling
[ di sémbling ]
NOUN
1. adoption of false appearance: the creation or adoption of a false appearance in order to conceal facts, feelings, or intentions
ADJECTIVE
1. feigning: feigning or pretending
disˇsemˇblingˇly ADVERB
-- Posted by Acronym on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 10:36 AM
Acronym,
More ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺'s
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 11:25 AM
Maxine's Take on Obamacare
Let me get this straight . . . . We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't!
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents.
Written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it.
Passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes.
With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect.
By a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!!
'What the @#!*% could possibly go wrong?'
Let's run whoever writes the Maxine pieces for President!
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 2:23 PM
Whoops, wrong thread, I thought this was the one about health insurance.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 7:54 PM
wrong!..... if you don't get sick you do not need health insurance and sometimes you just die! and then your family and children will need life insurance.
-- Posted by D49F11 on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 8:13 PM
If you don't get sick and just die a ripe old age, your family is reared and on their own. Hopefully they can be proud of what you left them without gov'mnt telling what to do with it.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 8:37 PM
OJ
Death Tax.....
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Feb 14, 2011, at 10:02 PM
Menu
Feb. 28, 2008
"Both of us [Hillary Clinton] want to provide health care to all Americans. There's a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think the problem is that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it's one that she's tried to elevate, arguing that because I don't force people to buy health care that I'm not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."
Replies (107)