This health care reform debate is crazy!
08-15-2009, 10:25 PM
#281
Contributors
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: MPLS, USA
Posts: 5,765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 10 Honda Fit Sport, 10 Honda Pilot Touring
Originally Posted by swajames' post='978036' date='Aug 16 2009, 01:03 AM
I don't think it's fair to cite public schools as a disaster. While there's always room for improvement, if anything the best run districts provide a possible template and an example of what the healthcare model could perhaps be.
As it stands today, every child must attend school, and the local district is obligated to provide a place. If, however, the parents choose, they can either home-school or take their kids private. Either way, taxes fund the public option and you pay whether or not you choose to consume, but you always have the ability to pay for a private option if that's your preference. The availability of the public option maintains pressure on private providers to provide extra value.
It's essentially how the public healthcare model could (and probably will) operate.
The core difference, however, is that while the law demands every child must go to school (and all of us pay the same tax burden, irrespective of whether our kids are publicly or privately educated) it makes no such demands in relation to healthcare. That's what I feel is wrong. As I've posted before, a public option, with the ability for those who want to do something different to maintain that choice, has to be a very viable option.
As it stands today, every child must attend school, and the local district is obligated to provide a place. If, however, the parents choose, they can either home-school or take their kids private. Either way, taxes fund the public option and you pay whether or not you choose to consume, but you always have the ability to pay for a private option if that's your preference. The availability of the public option maintains pressure on private providers to provide extra value.
It's essentially how the public healthcare model could (and probably will) operate.
The core difference, however, is that while the law demands every child must go to school (and all of us pay the same tax burden, irrespective of whether our kids are publicly or privately educated) it makes no such demands in relation to healthcare. That's what I feel is wrong. As I've posted before, a public option, with the ability for those who want to do something different to maintain that choice, has to be a very viable option.
Again, I agree, this is essentially how the public health care model could(and probably will) operate, with failure as the norm.
While we rarely agree on the subject of politics, it is nice that we can keep it relatively civil.
08-15-2009, 10:49 PM
#282
Contributors
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 535i w/ Sports & Permium Pkg. Silv/Blk
2008 VW R32 w/Nav.
1992 VW Corrado Silv/Blk-retired
2001 530i Sports/Premium-retired
Originally Posted by DRANGED' post='978019' date='Aug 16 2009, 01:47 AM
Yeah, perhaps non-profit insurance companies are the answer? Who knows? I don't pretend to have all the answers but I do not think that gov't is the answer. I believe putting ones trust in gov't is a recipe for disaster. As I have said in previous posts, all one need do is look to medicare, medicaid, social security and public schools for proof.
There are far too many special interests at work in gov't. For proof of that, one need only look to the current proposed plan and exemption of Unions from the public option roles.
Why does congress have privatized health care if public health care is the cats meow? I think you will find, under examination of the plan, congress and the president exempt from the gov't roles as well.
There are far too many special interests at work in gov't. For proof of that, one need only look to the current proposed plan and exemption of Unions from the public option roles.
Why does congress have privatized health care if public health care is the cats meow? I think you will find, under examination of the plan, congress and the president exempt from the gov't roles as well.
My Health Saving/spending Account, HSA would be unencumbered by a lot of rules and red tape and would be,
1) Tax free. (with minor exceptions)
2) Fully portable(you keep it as you move from job to job).
3) Transferable (It can be passed on to your designated beneficiaries tax free.)
4) You can add as much money as you can afford to it.
5) If your employer contributes to your HSA they get a tax cut in the equivalent if they are a small or medium sized business. (Progressively less as the corporation gets larger.) I expect some of you not to like this.
6) No age restrictions but cannot be counted as assets for minors seeking financial aid for school. (so you can have separate accounts for your minor children.)
7) Can be invested but resulting profits can be subject to taxes if removed from the plan to be used for non-health care related expenditures.
8) Your HSA's principal contributions can only be used for health care related expenditures (including dental, vision, cosmetic, family planning etc.)
9) Your HSA is not subject to liens, lawsuits, alimony,garnishments etc.
10) .....that's all I have so far.
Of course this would only be a part of comprehensive healthcare reform which, for me at least, needs to include a public option or a facsimile thereof.
08-16-2009, 06:38 AM
#283
Originally Posted by rogerj' post='977924' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:17 PM
The initial debate is about access. Nobody is is discussing this. WE ARE ALL PAYING FOR THE LACK OF ACCESS. DOES ANYBODY UNDERSTAND THIS? Nope. The next issue is cost. I have worked in healthcare for the last 12 years and been hospitalized myself for 1 week with full insurance. Anyone who thinks they can put put money away to pay for future medical expenses is smokin. Here is the funny part. Let's say you break your leg and need surgery. The surgeon and hospital charge $35,000. Medicare negotiates a rate for $20,000 paid in full. If you pay private, you pay the full $35,000.00 This is fact. Resolve that mister private insurance man. How does more $ outta pocket save more $?
08-16-2009, 07:13 AM
#285
Originally Posted by pjinca' post='977997' date='Aug 15 2009, 11:25 PM
There will be insurance no matter what - the lobby is too strong. The questions are what kind? how much? who will pay for it? who will manage/regulate it?
Clearly, insurance is the single biggest racket there is, they will no relinquish power willingly. We need, at minimum, the Gov't to step in with regulations to force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, end-of-life care, and serious illness. The status quo must end.
If we maintain a "for profit" healthcare system far too many Americans will continue to die unnecessarily
Clearly, insurance is the single biggest racket there is, they will no relinquish power willingly. We need, at minimum, the Gov't to step in with regulations to force insurers to cover pre-existing conditions, end-of-life care, and serious illness. The status quo must end.
If we maintain a "for profit" healthcare system far too many Americans will continue to die unnecessarily
08-16-2009, 07:50 AM
#286
Contributors
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 4,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Ride: 2008 Porsche 911 Carrera S Convertible. Midnight Blue, 6 Speed.Retired - 2007 997 Carrera S, Midnight Blue, Grey leather, premium audioRetired - 2007 550i, Monaco Blue over Beige, Navigation, Logic 7, Cold Weather Pack, Comfort Access, Sport Package
Model Year: 2008
Originally Posted by mjfloyd1' post='978197' date='Aug 16 2009, 08:13 AM
Britain does not give dialysis to kidney failure patients who are over 65 years old. How many Britains "die unnecessarily"?
There is no specific age-related cut off for any treatment in the UK.
The dialysis rumor is another example of the misrepresentations and misinformation that it is being fed into the healthcare debate and the unfortunate willingness of some people to let such falsehoods go unchallenged and to accept hyperbole as fact. It's perfectly possible that some patients may struggle to get care as quickly as others, that may depend to a large extent upon where you live, but that's very different from the rumor that is flying around... Trouble is, the facts don't make for such good scaremongering emails, do they?
08-16-2009, 08:36 AM
#287
Contributors
Originally Posted by swajames' post='978036' date='Aug 16 2009, 02:03 AM
I don't think it's fair to cite public schools as a disaster, John. While there's always room for improvement, if anything the best run districts provide a possible template and an example of what the healthcare model could perhaps be.
As it stands today, every child must attend school, and the local district is obligated to provide a place. If, however, the parents choose, they can either home-school or take their kids private. Either way, taxes fund the public option and you pay whether or not you choose to consume, but you always have the ability to pay for a private option if that's your preference. The availability of the public option maintains pressure on private providers to provide extra value.
It's essentially how the public healthcare model could (and probably will) operate.
The core difference, however, is that while the law demands every child must go to school (and all of us pay the same tax burden, irrespective of whether our kids are publicly or privately educated) it makes no such demands in relation to healthcare. That's what I feel is wrong. As I've posted before, a public option, with the ability for those who want to do something different to maintain that choice, has to be a very viable option.
As it stands today, every child must attend school, and the local district is obligated to provide a place. If, however, the parents choose, they can either home-school or take their kids private. Either way, taxes fund the public option and you pay whether or not you choose to consume, but you always have the ability to pay for a private option if that's your preference. The availability of the public option maintains pressure on private providers to provide extra value.
It's essentially how the public healthcare model could (and probably will) operate.
The core difference, however, is that while the law demands every child must go to school (and all of us pay the same tax burden, irrespective of whether our kids are publicly or privately educated) it makes no such demands in relation to healthcare. That's what I feel is wrong. As I've posted before, a public option, with the ability for those who want to do something different to maintain that choice, has to be a very viable option.
I am being regionally secular here to answer the above but our public schools in this area are a complete & utter disaster, both financially (i.e. budgetary) and efficiently (i.e. graduation rate & true level of the students academic ability).
62-65% of our property tax goes directly to the local public school district and for this we are granted with a 50% graduation rate. This is awful by any means. I know the parents are also to blame in this fiasco before this point is brought up. But, I am sick and tired every fall of voting on a new millage for the school. I am a public school product and it pains me to vote no on this issue but when is enough, enough? I am sick of the school board "brass" having company cars, gas credit cards, no-pay insurance (both auto & health), private spending accounts, etc. etc.. How is this, using the public school mantra: "For the kids"? All we are creating is a legion of fast food workers. They are also trying out the concept of "outcome based education"; this winning process is not concerned with grades but as long as little Jimmy tries he deserves an "A". In the real world "trying" gets you fired; "doing" keeps you hired.
Cleveland's public schools (horrible grad rate) are ready to go into state receivership and once again it is blamed solely on financial hardship. And don't even get me started on Detroit's public schools; these clowns have one of the largest budgets in the country and still have a 65-70% drop-out rate. They also were just recently given 2.5 billion dollars in TARP funds. So now "WE" are paying for a different district's nightmare. The school board in Detroit has tax-payer bodyguards for it's members. But remember, "It's for the kids"...........
Money is not the answer to fixing these issues as I have shown above. The public schools have enough cash to teach children effectively. I am not blaming the teachers either, I have been blessed with great teachers when I went to school, teaching me to learn and think critically and with problem-solving skills. These skills or tools seem to be lost regarding the newer generations of students. Things now are more of a "sponge and puke up the answer" mode of thought. The way simple mathematics is taught now is a nightmare! I come from a long line of educators (teachers & professors, not management). Since public school has "become" a business the level of effective public education has dropped. If you can't make it on a 2.5 billion dollar handout you are not in the right business and something needs to be done because remember; "It's for the kids".
08-16-2009, 08:53 AM
#289
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by pjinca' post='976083' date='Aug 13 2009, 10:10 PM
All I have left to say to you is read my new SIG 
made it just for the small minded, enjoy and 100 points if you can figure out who wrote it - good luck Warning may require reading
made it just for the small minded, enjoy and 100 points if you can figure out who wrote it - good luck Warning may require reading
08-16-2009, 08:58 AM
#290
Contributors
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Alpine White Girl' post='975667' date='Aug 13 2009, 04:52 PM
like i said maybe its because where im from that i dont see the big deal in colored. What is the difference between calling someone colored or black? I dont really care anymore about defending what i said. I said what i said and mean it. The point of my post wasn't to be racist. It was to show that BLACK people came out in record numbers to vote for a black man.
Its proven that there were more first time black voters than any other demographic. John had posted that 96% of black people voted for Obama. Would a record number of black people came out to vote for two white people running for president? I dont think so, and if you think that is racist then i dont care.
who really wants to make their own choices these days?? clearly pjinca would rather be spoon fed. I personally like to be able to chose what i want
I wasnt able to read this thread since last night but it was nice coming home and reading how bad Dranged dismantled your post. After reading a lot of your post it honestly makes me want
Whats funny is you talk about being american first. Yet you make jokes about whitey's, and you bash the president of our country. Then you said the VA wont cover your knee's because it wasnt job related. Instead of waiting for a government handout why dont you sell that 30-50 thousand dollar car?? Your health should come before your car, shouldnt it? So you can live in the nice house, drive the nice car, have expensive things, but cant pay to get your knee's checked out or fixed.
Sounds about right....you make the bed you sleep in every night with the choices YOU make!