Poll: Do you favor Universal Healthcare if:

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 57 of 57

Thread: National Health Care

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    Quote Originally Posted by Steeeeve View Post
    well considering voting for this thing actually helps the insurance companies I'm not sure why senators wouldn't vote for it...ha.
    But it helps insurance companies more as a result of the concessions made to Lieberman, surely?
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    But it helps insurance companies more as a result of the concessions made to Lieberman, surely?
    Really it didn't. The concessions made by those few holdouts was mainly just to benefit their own state...such as local hospitals, companies, etc.

    AHIP actually opposed the bill which makes you believe health insurance companies don't want the bill...and they probably don't but that doesn't mean they don't get anything out of it. They still make bank, just have to do a lot to get there.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lancaster, UK
    Posts
    4,892
    But the public option and the expansion of medicare were taken out to appease Lieberman, which clearly benefits private insurers.
    “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist” - Helder Camara
    “It is not the will of God for some to have everything and others to have nothing. This cannot be God” - Oscar Romero
    "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder" - Einstein
    "We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him" - CS Lewis

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,660
    Quote Originally Posted by Jo Bennett View Post
    But the public option and the expansion of medicare were taken out to appease Lieberman, which clearly benefits private insurers.
    Not to the extent the other provisions benefit private insurance. Besides the "public option" was supposed to be more expensive anyway so it only allowed insurance companies to get more costly members...something they didn't want to begin with.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Stockbridge, Georgia
    Posts
    7,166
    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    I agree that there is some need for reform. Portability is certainly one of the areas that needs improvement. Coverage for pre-existing conditions would be another. Tort reform would be a third.


    The problem is that this Congress thinks it's out-slicking the American public. They write a clause stating that illegals won't be covered, but block a provision that requires proof of citizenship prior to treatment. So, essentially, they are setting up a system that covers illegal aliens. No verification, no prevention. It's that simple.
    Tort reform will never happen. The Senate bill imposes penalties (withdrawal of funding) on states that put caps on malpractice suits...protection of trial lawyers is of the utmost importance to the government. They contribute a lot to the campaign funds.

    Quote Originally Posted by romebigred View Post
    Wow, Jim. Would you kindly get a towel and start mopping up? You're dripping disdain and sarcasm all over the floor.

    If when you say that YOU would be willing to pay for the "security" of not having to worry about loss of job or healthcare, that YOU are willing to pay for YOUR OWN insurance to that end, then yes, you are right in being indignant when that is called a socialistic tendency. If you mean that you don't mind VOLUNTARILY paying for SOMEBODY ELSE's security, as long as they pay for yours when you need it, then that's also not socialistic. However, if you mean that you support the idea that all persons required to pay for another's security, regardless of desire, then that DOES come under the heading of "socialistic tendencies."

    The first listing in the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word "socialism" in the following way:

    1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

    So let's apply this. government would have "ownership" (see the above definition,) his public healthcare option, government would be responsible for the 'administration the means of producing' this healthcare, and government would be responsible for the "distribution of goods." The goods in this case being the money (tax money) and healthcare service. Wow, that fits the definition of socialism pretty dang well.

    Yes, liberalism is closer to socialism than conservatism ever was to socialism.

    Socialism (and to a large extent Liberalism,) believes that the government should take care of many details in a person's life, such as whether or not the populace have jobs, healthcare, etc. The definition is even found in the names of the two platforms! The political term "liberal" means a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT (for liberal, see abundant, large, plentiful), with wide-spread (one may also insert the word 'liberal' here,) influence.

    Conservatives believe that government should be "conservative" (see minimal, sparing, small) and exist for the reasons that Locke lays out in chapter i of his second volume of "Two Treatises on Government." (A book which almost all of the Founding Fathers read avidly.) In chapter i, Locke defines political power as the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property. What does he mean by "regulation of property"? Later in that chapter, he states that a man in this original state is bound by the laws of nature, but he is otherwise able to live, act, and dispose of his possessions as he sees fit. NOT AS THE GOVERNMENT SEES FIT.

    Now of course, for a government to exist, there must be SOME mandatory tax to cover the overhead. But Locke insisted that government did not exist to force men to be "good", just to make sure they didn't infringe one another's rights. As a conservative, I do not believe that government should FORCE us to be charitable to the poor. I DO believe in charity; I give away 12% of my income to charities OF MY OWN CHOOSING. I, like you, am willing to give others a bit of security simply because I believe it is right. However, I do not believe that it is right for government to force this on us. Governments can and should offer incentives for such charitable organizations to form, and, according to Adam Smith, founder of our capitalist economic model, they will form. As Reagan stated, "The government does nothing as well or as efficiently as the private sector."

    Beyond any arguments (extremely valid though they are,) that the government will be creating a conflict of interest by competing in the private sector, the biggest, I think is that this public option is going to be cheaper, and will succeed by subsidizing it from OUR TAX DOLLARS, and WITHHOLDING FULL PAYMENT from Doctors and Hospitals, which will further strain an already harried healthcare industry. We can't afford this "cheaper" and more socialistic option.
    Worth repeating.

    Quote Originally Posted by romebigred View Post
    Geez, that was wordy.

    *whew*

    Sorry for the length there.
    That's not wordy. It is worthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by JPSartre12 View Post
    Welcome to a target-rich environment. Lots of liberals here.
    ...every coin must have two sides...
    What you say can and will be used against you.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  6. #51
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by jim's trucking View Post
    Tort reform will never happen. The Senate bill imposes penalties (withdrawal of funding) on states that put caps on malpractice suits...protection of trial lawyers is of the utmost importance to the government. They contribute a lot to the campaign funds.

    ...
    It's been estimated that Tort Reform would cut costs by ~$54Billion over the next decade. But, it's true cost would be the campaign contributions to Democratic politicians, so they aren't about to shoot the goose that lays their golden eggs.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    19

    Social Beings

    For those that think it's "Personal Responsibility," when it comes to Health Care, I hope the rest of the country doesn't decide the same applies to, our Military, Police and Fire Departments and Education. Talk about calamity when everyone has to figure out how to hire their own policeman, fireman, teacher and even a soldier or two! Maybe social isn't a bad word like some people would like you to think, seeing as how the human being is a social creature. Capitalism is a great way to reward people for producing, but it's not the be all and end all for the citizenry. There has to be a sorting out of priorities that will best serve the needs and priorities of most people when it comes to Social Programs, and they cannot be measured in Profit & Loss Statement.
    CEO's have a responsibility to the stock holders to generate as big a profit as possible. If they don't, there usually out, as perhaps they should be. When it comes to our Military, Police / Fire Department and Schools, we want the most bang for our bucks, and obviously the goals of Corporate America and Social America are exact opposites. Maybe, just maybe it's time to consider elevating National Health Care to a status equal to Military, Police/ Fire Department, and Education for the good of all.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, Oz
    Posts
    3,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Pflack View Post
    For those that think it's "Personal Responsibility," when it comes to Health Care, I hope the rest of the country doesn't decide the same applies to, our Military, Police and Fire Departments and Education. Talk about calamity when everyone has to figure out how to hire their own policeman, fireman, teacher and even a soldier or two!
    Yes what chaos! Imagine, worse still, if everybody had to buy their own food - and CLOTHES! Horror! Only an omnipotent government that treats its citizens as children and makes all decisions on their behalf can save us from the TERRIBLE CHAOS of making CHOICES about what to buy! Save me guvment im too stupid to buy for myself!
    He or she who supports a State organized in a military way – whether directly or indirectly – participates in sin. Each man takes part in the sin by contributing to the maintenance of the State by paying taxes.

    ~ Gandhi

  9. #54
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Pflack has 3 posts on 4Forums. These are it. He's a plant, IMO. It just shows you the depths that liberals will go in order to push their socialist agenda.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pfake
    Health Care Reform
    ________________________________________
    Everybody seems so confused about National Health Care, but I fail to see what is so confusing about it. It’s at least as important and vital as Police and Fire Protection, Military Preparedness and the minimum Education we now provide. Social Security was enacted to make sure our elderly had something that would ensure they would be able to exist, if only minimally, and finally Medicare since we recognized that the cost of health care for the oldest of our population was prohibitive.

    The only real problem is dishonesty of our politicians, and self interest groups. It’s easy to understand why the insurance and drug companies would want to avoid Health Care Reform at most any cost. What really needs to be addressed in order to move this Dream into Reality for the American Citizen and Corporate America is a face off with our elected officials. It’s obvious our elected officials are far more interested in re-election coffers being tended to by the drug and insurance companies. If you have any doubt, just look back when Part D was dealt with for Medicare. By the time it was all over, we found it illegal to go out of the United States to buy drugs, even if they were cheaper, and it was illegal to negotiate the cost of drugs even though every country dose so. It really is immaterial weather the politician is democrat or republican, they are compromised with self ambition and have no regard for reality, honesty, integrity much less what is best for the people they represent. Anyone who really can’t see the benefit of National Health Care for America is far more than one brick short of a load, and will be the ones that will need it the most.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pfake

    National Health Care
    ________________________________________
    I think maybe the time has come to elevate health care at least to the same level as Police and Fire Protection, Education and the Military. Corporations must generate profit for it's shareholders and that's goes right to the heart of the matter. It goes deeper then refusing coverage for preexisting conditions or maximum lifetime payout being exhausted. I can see where companies prefer to minimize there risk if they are responsible. But again, that's part of the problem. I think we have to step back and really look at this objectively, and honestly. Maybe the only way to get the biggest bang for our bucks is look at it on a national level. It's popular to make statements like, "the government can't do anything right," but to be honest, I have yet to not get a bill mailed through the U.S. Post Office. I must admit, "when the IRS said I failed to complete that particular report," they were right. Ask anyone you know on Medicare what they really think about it. I think you will find most will tell you "it's at least as good if not better then the insurance they had prior to Medicare." Also, when is the last time you heard someone complain about their Social Security Check being late or screwed up? I think a lot of people feel there is a fairness issue here too, or feel it is a lack of personal responsibility that causes people to not have insurance. Well, all I can say is, "do away with Police and Fire Protection, Public Schools, and the Military, accept your Personal Responsibility and hire a cop, or fireman, or teacher when you need one, oh yeah, don't forget you might need to get a few soldiers names just in case." Or, face reality and see that maybe we have some pretty good ideas on running big concerns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pfake

    Social Beings
    ________________________________________
    For those that think it's "Personal Responsibility," when it comes to Health Care, I hope the rest of the country doesn't decide the same applies to, our Military, Police and Fire Departments and Education. Talk about calamity when everyone has to figure out how to hire their own policeman, fireman, teacher and even a soldier or two! Maybe social isn't a bad word like some people would like you to think, seeing as how the human being is a social creature. Capitalism is a great way to reward people for producing, but it's not the be all and end all for the citizenry. There has to be a sorting out of priorities that will best serve the needs and priorities of most people when it comes to Social Programs, and they cannot be measured in Profit & Loss Statement.
    CEO's have a responsibility to the stock holders to generate as big a profit as possible. If they don't, there usually out, as perhaps they should be. When it comes to our Military, Police / Fire Department and Schools, we want the most bang for our bucks, and obviously the goals of Corporate America and Social America are exact opposites. Maybe, just maybe it's time to consider elevating National Health Care to a status equal to Military, Police/ Fire Department, and Education for the good of all.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Chuz Life View Post
    So few people take the time to think things through. Ant///Mintaka wants to tax the rich to pay for healthcare for all. That sounds great until you do some learnin and find out where the rich get their money from.
    It doesn't sound great at all, one should not have to consider where they get their money from so long as they did not steal it.

  11. #56
    JPSartre12 Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom View Post
    It doesn't sound great at all, one should not have to consider where they get their money from so long as they did not steal it.
    When liberals engage in class warfare, they don't care where the bullets come from.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    11
    You buy their goods and services, YOU make good on their investments, YOU pay interest on their loans and other securities

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •