Ted Kennedy to be succeeded by a toolbag

[D-Dogg]

ikol is logikol..

[caliber66]

Assuming we do away with Medicare/Medicaid, what would lead one to logically conclude that health care for the poor and aging would be assumed by charitable organizations? Is it because charities already cover anyone who is not covered by another health plan? Is it because charities have eradicated homelessness in this country?

[Good Old Neon]

But there are actually a lot of good people out there, and there is such a thing as charity. I am just not of the mentality that everything worth having should be provided by the government. Also, it's not as black and white as you portray it (and it pains me that the "conservative" is the one bringing gray into the argument). If someone spends thousands of dollars a year on cigarettes for several decades and ultimately can't afford a lobectomy for their lung cancer, did they really die of poverty?

The government is not some giant breasted alien that just sort of dropped out of the sky from whose teat we suckle, it’s made up of folks like us. The government would administer the plan, WE, the taxpayers, would fund it through the collection of taxes. Now, you can say the private sector is more efficient, and to an extent I agree, but then we had that little financial meltdown that nearly led to another great depression, so, as I’ve said in the past, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m a bit skeptical with respect to the private sectors ability to perform as of late.

 

I’m increasingly sick of this idea that services provided by the government amount to little more than handouts. That would be true if there were no such thing as taxes, and our earnings did not pay into and perpetuate the system, but that’s not the case. I don’t see that big a difference between my employer taking $400 out of my check for health insurance, vs. that money being taken by the federal government. And, I suspect a government administered plan would save most of us money by slashing individual contributions. Would the current plan require that I dole out $400 every month, to the tune of (roughly) $5000 dollars a year, or would it decrease that amount substantially? In October, I came down with bacterial pneumonia and spent a week in the hospital, four of which were spent in the ICU, the total bill came to $20,000 – with a remaining balance of over two grand to be paid by yours truly. So, on top of the $5,000 in premiums, I’m now responsible for an additional $2000 (not counting other fees associated with unrelated visits to the doctor) – for a total of seven grand for the year (though, if we were to add the other aforementioned fees for visits and medication, the total would be closer to nine or ten) – and I HAVE insurance.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Assuming we do away with Medicare/Medicaid, what would lead one to logically conclude that health care for the poor and aging would be assumed by charitable organizations? Is it because charities already cover anyone who is not covered by another health plan? Is it because charities have eradicated homelessness in this country?

 

15,000 posts and you're finally starting to get a clue. If GON had just contacted a charity, he wouldn't have had to worry about the $4,000 in costs that weren't covered in his health plan. He just lacks the willpower to do so.

[bleedorange]

The government is not some giant breasted alien that just sort of dropped out of the sky from whose teat we suckle, it’s made up of folks like us. The government would administer the plan, WE, the taxpayers, would fund it through the collection of taxes. Now, you can say the private sector is more efficient, and to an extent I agree, but then we had that little financial meltdown that nearly led to another great depression, so, as I’ve said in the past, you’ll have to excuse me if I’m a bit skeptical with respect to the private sectors ability to perform as of late.

 

I’m increasingly sick of this idea that services provided by the government amount to little more than handouts. That would be true if there were no such thing as taxes, and our earnings did not pay into and perpetuate the system, but that’s not the case. I don’t see that big a difference between my employer taking $400 out of my check for health insurance, vs. that money being taken by the federal government. And, I suspect a government administered plan would save most of us money by slashing individual contributions. Would the current plan require that I dole out $400 every month, to the tune of (roughly) $5000 dollars a year, or would it decrease that amount substantially? In October, I came down with bacterial pneumonia and spent a week in the hospital, four of which were spent in the ICU, the total bill came to $20,000 – with a remaining balance of over two grand to be paid by yours truly. So, on top of the $5,000 in premiums, I’m now responsible for an additional $2000 (not counting other fees associated with unrelated visits to the doctor) – for a total of seven grand for the year (though, if we were to add the other aforementioned fees for visits and medication, the total would be closer to nine or ten) – and I HAVE insurance.

 

So insurance paid for $18,000? That's nice. You're right, though. I think everything should be free.

[IRememberDBoon]

I think we should institute Ikol's brilliant idea of tracking everyone's intake throughout hteir life and then decide when they get something whether or not they deserve care based on said intake. Shouldnt be too hard to manage.

If they did smoke then they shouldn’t be treated for lung cancer and should suffer and die in the street like the dreg they are. Jeff Tweedy for instance.

[ikol]

Assuming we do away with Medicare/Medicaid, what would lead one to logically conclude that health care for the poor and aging would be assumed by charitable organizations? Is it because charities already cover anyone who is not covered by another health plan? Is it because charities have eradicated homelessness in this country?

 

No, it's because the government has eradicated homelessness. How about taking a significant portion of the upper income earners' tax burden and allowing them the option of either donating that money to a healthcare charity of their choice or it goes to the government? Sure, there are deductions on charitable donations, but there are limits on those and eventually the alternative minimum tax kicks in.

 

The government is not some giant breasted alien that just sort of dropped out of the sky from whose teat we suckle, it’s made up of folks like us. The government would administer the plan, WE, the taxpayers, would fund it through the collection of taxes.

 

But like half the nation pays no federal income taxes other than payroll taxes.

 

I’m increasingly sick of this idea that services provided by the government amount to little more than handouts. That would be true if there were no such thing as taxes, and our earnings did not pay into and perpetuate the system, but that’s not the case. I don’t see that big a difference between my employer taking $400 out of my check for health insurance, vs. that money being taken by the federal government. And, I suspect a government administered plan would save most of us money by slashing individual contributions.

 

The difference is that there's no healthcare reform bill that mandates a certain amount be taken out of people's paychecks to pay for the plan. Not everyone will be paying premiums.

 

Would the current plan require that I dole out $400 every month, to the tune of (roughly) $5000 dollars a year, or would it decrease that amount substantially?

 

It depends on what tax bracket you're in. And if it does decrease that amount, it's doing so through cuts in Medicare reimbursements to your doctor.

 

In October, I came down with bacterial pneumonia and spent a week in the hospital, four of which were spent in the ICU, the total bill came to $20,000 – with a remaining balance of over two grand to be paid by yours truly. So, on top of the $5,000 in premiums, I’m now responsible for an additional $2000 (not counting other fees associated with unrelated visits to the doctor) – for a total of seven grand for the year (though, if we were to add the other aforementioned fees for visits and medication, the total would be closer to nine or ten) – and I HAVE insurance.

 

Well I guess my question is who should be responsible for that bill? The hospital? The government? Your insurance? Chinese lenders? That $20,000 has to come from somewhere.

 

15,000 posts and you're finally starting to get a clue. If GON had just contacted a charity, he wouldn't have had to worry about the $4,000 in costs that weren't covered in his health plan. He just lacks the willpower to do so.

 

No, he lacks education because of the socio-cultural impact of Doritos commercials.

[ikol]

I think we should institute Ikol's brilliant idea of tracking everyone's intake throughout hteir life and then decide when they get something whether or not they deserve care based on said intake. Shouldnt be too hard to manage.

If they did smoke then they shouldn’t be treated for lung cancer and should suffer and die in the street like the dreg they are. Jeff Tweedy for instance.

 

I think you have a problem detecting sarcasm. I can treat this condition by bombarding you with sarcastic comments, but it's gonna cost you.

[Good Old Neon]

So insurance paid for $18,000? That's nice. You're right, though. I think everything should be free.

 

Again, if we had a system similar to Canada’s, in wouldn’t be free – because again, a portion of my taxes would go towards that care. And rather than throw down ten grand on health insurance, more of my paycheck could go towards updating our ancient appliances and much desired renovations and stuff – i.e. – purchases and services that might actually help stimulate the economy. Plus, you’re ignoring the fact that a major illness can bankrupt an entire family in no time – resulting in foreclosures and all the other sorts of problems that have been making headlines for the past year or more.

[bjorn_skurj]

I will say it again - unless you want to go to the place where we refuse to give people medical treatment unless we prove their ability to pay up-front, the only reasonable approach is to have some form of socialized medicine. I just cannot believe it is better to make people wait until they need to go to the ER, where treatment costs the most, than spend money up front - EVEN IF THEY ARE LAZY JOBLESS FAT DORITO-EATING, GENERIC CIG-SMOKING BASTARDS. Anybody who is against universal coverage is being intellectually dishonest if they don't answer the question - do you really want to go to that place? If you do, fine, but don't pretend the current system is sustainable, because it ain't. And please offer your own solution - negativity without some suggestion of an alternative is also intellectually dishonest.

[Tweedling]

This is an honest question: Do different states deal with the payment of medical bills different. I've paid out a several thousands of dollars in med bills over the course of years. Do some states require an immediate payment throwing people into bankruptcy? I've always been told as long as you are paying something on a regular basis they can not send you to a collection agency.

Again only a question. Please keep the smart ass responses to 2 or 3 please.

[Guest Speed Racer]

Do some states require an immediate payment throwing people into bankruptcy? I've always been told as long as you are paying something on a regular basis they can not send you to a collection agency.

 

Regardless, an illness like GON's, or a terminal illness, could throw a family into severe financial distress. If your illness is to consume 30% of your household income, it is likely that you are already using most of that money for something else; obviously the lower your income, the more likely it is that you don't have a huge amount of savings built up, nor do you have a huge percentage of your monthly budget devoted to savings - also much less likely that you can cut anything out of your budget (downsizing homes, cutting extraneous spending out of the budget, selling children). So either way, whether you have Tommy Crowbar coming after you for the money or not, you still owe and you're still bound to that for however long it takes you to pay it back, keeping you from spending on other things (savings for a home, college for your children, retirement), continuing the cycle of financial distress. Not to mention, those in lower income brackets will be penalized for their poverty, accruing more interest and late fees for payments on illnesses that more well-off people can simply write a check for. That is, a $120,000/year attorney can likely write a check for a $2,000 balance, but a $30,000 administrative assistant would likely have to pay $2,500 in interest and late fees.

[watch me fall]

All I know is that even with insurance and a decent salary, if I were to get seriously ill I would be screwed in more ways than one. I'm single, so I have no one else to rely on. I do have savings but probably not enough. My mom makes less money than I do so she's not an option. So even though I am able to support myself now and put away for the future, there's still that fear that something could happen to me and what in the hell would I do if it did. I know people who are living this nightmare right now and I wish they didn't have to.

[caliber66]

No, it's because the government has eradicated homelessness. How about taking a significant portion of the upper income earners' tax burden and allowing them the option of either donating that money to a healthcare charity of their choice or it goes to the government? Sure, there are deductions on charitable donations, but there are limits on those and eventually the alternative minimum tax kicks in.

 

Who has eradicated homelessness now?

[bjorn_skurj]

Underlining the health care debate for me personally is word that our insurance rates are going up 28 percent for next year.

[JohnO]

True, but given that her stance on the “issues” is not far removed from Kennedy’s, I think there is something more at play here.

Oh there was much more at play here. Brown tapped into two of the biggest concerns of the electorate. First being the abomination that is Obamacare with all it's back room shenanigans and sweet heart deals for Unions and bribes for certain votes. The second being the ludicrous level of deficit spending being promoted by the Democratic majority in Washington. November is going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats unless they change direction asap. Personally I think they should keep listening to MSNBC and keep trying to cram their ill advised programs down the throats of the American voters.

 

Let's be clear this was a vote of no confidence in this administration, its policies and its politics.

[Sparky speaks]

Couldn't have said it better myself.....

 

How to Squander the Presidency in One Year

Hey, Conan Obama: How About Now? Can You Hear Us Now?

 

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/22-7

[bjorn_skurj]

Oh there was much more at play here. Brown tapped into two of the biggest concerns of the electorate. First being the abomination that is Obamacare with all it's back room shenanigans and sweet heart deals for Unions and bribes for certain votes. The second being the ludicrous level of deficit spending being promoted by the Democratic majority in Washington. November is going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats unless they change direction asap. Personally I think they should keep listening to MSNBC and keep trying to cram their ill advised programs down the throats of the American voters.

 

Let's be clear this was a vote of no confidence in this administration, its policies and its politics.

What is your solution to the health care problem?

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.....

 

How to Squander the Presidency in One Year

Hey, Conan Obama: How About Now? Can You Hear Us Now?

 

http://www.commondre...ew/2010/01/22-7

What is your solution to the health care problem?

[JohnO]

What is your solution to the health care problem?

What problem?

[caliber66]

[bjorn_skurj]

What problem?

The problem of millions being uninsured, smart ass.

[Guest Speed Racer]

(He knows that he pays more for his own healthcare costs because of that, right?)

[Good Old Neon]

Oh there was much more at play here. Brown tapped into two of the biggest concerns of the electorate. First being the abomination that is Obamacare with all it's back room shenanigans and sweet heart deals for Unions and bribes for certain votes. The second being the ludicrous level of deficit spending being promoted by the Democratic majority in Washington. November is going to be a bloodbath for the Democrats unless they change direction asap. Personally I think they should keep listening to MSNBC and keep trying to cram their ill advised programs down the throats of the American voters.

 

Let's be clear this was a vote of no confidence in this administration, its policies and its politics.

 

Personally, I think it has more to do with the absurd level of ignorance out there – as most of the objections I’ve heard with respect to “Obamacare” are about as nuanced and sophisticated as an episode of The Hill. When the name “Glenn” and “Beck” are used repeatedly, in the same sentence and in that order, by voters, you just sort of know where they're coming from, intellectually.

 

But seriously, it’s the economy, and that has more to do with 8 + years of mismanagement, than these so programs you’re referring to – which, if you were to ask the voting public – “Could you name two programs supported by the president?” – in return, you’d probably receive a blank stare. The Brown vote is more of a reflection of what the voters don’t know and/or don't remember, than what they do – imo.

[Guest Speed Racer]

“Could you name two programs supported by the president?”

 

Death panels and socialism.

[Gobias Industries]

I read an article about this the other day (don't remember where though), but thanks to this guy's election, a grand-scale Republican takeover of Congress in the next midterm election becomes much, much harder now. It went along the lines of the new guy not letting the bill pass. If the bill passes, the Republicans have something to really rally around and gain a lot of momentum for midterm elections. But if the reform is stopped before it starts, then it's like, "well, crisis averted, not too big of a deal, eh?" sort of thing, and there's less of a "reason" to vote Republican.

 

If any of that makes sense.