Universal Healthcare

ReconToaster wrote:You mean in the case of your proposed topic of discussion, or in the Case of the US healthcare system? Obama did not invent medicaid.

Obama is pushing for a government-funded alternative for healthcare.

ReconToaster wrote: - Obama wants to regulate insurance providers in order to make sure that they are not discriminating against the disabled, or people with pre-existing conditions.

Sort of like how our firestations are discriminating against blacks by having the tests too fair for everyone? Or are they just trying to make it so that a teen that has been drunk while driving four times in the past year has the same chance as a teen with a perfect record? Either way, it's stupid. The government may as well just make their own list for people who can and can't have healthcare. But wait, Obama want's everyone to have healthcare, so that's not going to work either.

ReconToaster wrote:- But Obama plans to improve medicaid, not to the point of being as high quality as plans provided by insurers, but to keep the insurance providers from charging too much for their services. If norton 360 only cost 10 dollars, you might use that instead of AVG free, because it is an all around more secure system. But, because Norton is so expensive, you cut your losses and got with AVG free.

That's Norton's loss. Healthcare companies have as much right to charge their prices as Norton does theirs. Having so many free alternatives certainly hasn't lowered Norton's prices, so why should it lower an Insurance company's?

ReconToaster wrote:- The above changes will likely only even out healthcare costs, so that they stay the same price as they are now, but for everyone. To lower costs, families that go with a reasonable health insurance policy (not a crazy, unnecessary one) will receive tax breaks.

And how will we determine who's going crazy? If anything, the government is sponsoring cheaper plans, which is just going to hurt healthcare companies even more.

ReconToaster wrote:- Large businesses are responsible for providing healthcare to their employees. That will not change.

It will when they have a free alternative. I don't think you appreciate how fragile these benefits are, especially in an economy like this.

ReconToaster wrote:Businesses will not be able to use Medicaid for their employees.

And why not?

ReconToaster wrote:Only people without such beneficial jobs will be able to take advantage of such services.

So they're encouraging low-paying jobs and unemployment? So much for Obama's high education standards.

ReconToaster wrote:Not a whole lot will change for the average working person. These change are designed to improve healthcare for the less privileged, those who are without a job, and families who seek outside insurance.

Right... no.

ReconToaster wrote:They're VERY expensive in comparison to what they once were, and they're not doing their job in providing the quality of care that is promised to their customers.

It's working GREAT for us. It's expensive because of all of the people these companies are letting in that require an extreme amount of care.

ReconToaster wrote:They are also not providing care to all Americans, which isn't their responsibility... but it's still something that needs to be done.

No it doesn't. Insurance is a cover, an extra piece of protection that you can choose to get, or not get. The only reason it is efficient at what it does is because people have that choice.

ReconToaster wrote:I'm sorry that I haven't had much experience with healthcare in my 16 years of life?

I'm sorry too.

ReconToaster wrote:If norton 360 only cost 10 dollars, you might use that instead of AVG free, because it is an all around more secure system. But, because Norton is so expensive, you cut your losses and got with AVG free.

lolwut?

I honestly can't remember the last time a saw a computer with Norton/Symantec that actually worked well....

where are you getting your info for that?

KristallNacht wrote:

ReconToaster wrote:If norton 360 only cost 10 dollars, you might use that instead of AVG free, because it is an all around more secure system. But, because Norton is so expensive, you cut your losses and got with AVG free.

lolwut?

I honestly can't remember the last time a saw a computer with Norton/Symantec that actually worked well....

where are you getting your info for that?

Lawl. My brother's PC died at the hands of Norton. And Norton still harasses my PC years after expiring.

Civ wrote:Obama is pushing for a government-funded alternative for healthcare.

No, he's pushing to improve current healthcare systems, and expand the number of people that can take advantage of them. ;)

Civ wrote:Sort of like how our firestations are discriminating against blacks by having the tests too fair for everyone? Or are they just trying to make it so that a teen that has been drunk while driving four times in the past year has the same chance as a teen with a perfect record? Either way, it's stupid. The government may as well just make their own list for people who can and can't have healthcare. But wait, Obama want's everyone to have healthcare, so that's not going to work either.

I'm sorry that you're not aware of this Civ, but some people aren't as privileged as you or me. Some people are born into difficult situations that prevent them from having such easy success in life. Whether or not they made the extra effort to make something of themselves, they still should not be left out in the cold when faced with injury or illness.

Don't Christians believe in helping the poor and handicapped?

Anyways, Obama is not going to force Healthcare providers to insure people who can't pay for insurance. That's what Medicaid is for, and that's why he is working to improve medicaid.

He will, however, be attempting to regulate providers so that they cannot simply turn someone away because they are diabetic... or something of that sort.

Civ wrote:That's Norton's loss. Healthcare companies have as much right to charge their prices as Norton does theirs. Having so many free alternatives certainly hasn't lowered Norton's prices, so why should it lower an Insurance company's?

And the health insurance providers will still have the right to charge just as much money as they do now. Still, they will have to come up with better, less expensive health plans if they want to keep the 'market share,' that they currently posses. If they don't lower their prices, and allow more people (disabled, and people with pre-existing medical problems)care, then that's their loss, and they'll lose some of their customers to the US system.

Civ wrote:It will when they have a free alternative. I don't think you appreciate how fragile these benefits are, especially in an economy like this.

They won't have the free fucking alternative Civ. That's the point. You see, the guys who helped to put the plan together actually thought this through. They're not looking to completely destroy all of the health insurance providers.

If you think Obama is interested in funding healthcare for the entire US population, then you're fucking crazy. He has stated AGAIN AND AGAIN that he does not want things to change for people receiving healthcare through their employer. That aspect will stay the same.

Obama is not offering a free alternative to everyone. He is offering a free alternative to those who are not employed, those who are denied care by insurance providers, and those that are too poor to afford any insurance.

Civ wrote:No it doesn't. Insurance is a cover, an extra piece of protection that you can choose to get, or not get. The only reason it is efficient at what it does is because people have that choice.

What? You think people who can't afford insurance would be able to afford the cost of medication, or surgery? That makes loads of sense Civ...

Civ wrote:It's working GREAT for us. It's expensive because of all of the people these companies are letting in that require an extreme amount of care.

That's not true. Health Insurance companies are extremely profitable. You're right that planned regulations might cause them to make slightly less money... but they won't come close to failing. They have enough methods as it is to keep from having to pay for the customers they are SUPPOSED to be caring for.

Civ wrote:So they're encouraging low-paying jobs and unemployment? So much for Obama's high education standards.

Do you have any idea how many people have lost their jobs in the past year, and thus lost their health insurance?

And no, they are not encouraging anything of the sort. If someone sets up a sanctuary for rape victims, they are not encouraging people to rape women (because they'll have a placed to go and be nurtured afterwards,) they are simply accepting the fact that rape exists, and working to help those who have been affected by it.

Obama's administration is not encouraging unemployment, or poverty. They are simply accepting that such things do and always will exist, and are working to help those affected by either of them.

Civ wrote:And how will we determine who's going crazy? If anything, the government is sponsoring cheaper plans, which is just going to hurt healthcare companies even more.

Hmm? People who could afford the massive health care plans on their own will not drop down to a more realistic plan because it's less expensive. People who were already paying for the unnecessary packages will continue to do so, and families who were paying for reasonable plans will continue to do so, whilst receiving a nice tax break.

Civ wrote:Right... no.

I'm sorry, did Fox news tell you different?

Civ wrote:I'm sorry too.

Try not to be a dick.

and i suppose you've read the entire 1,000+ pages of the deal they are trying to push through congress?

tiny tim wrote:and i suppose you've read the entire 1,000+ pages of the deal they are trying to push through congress?

Have you?

Also notice how you haven't offered a single argument...

no but I'm not the one going around spouting facts about something i haven't read. You are just going purely off of what Obama said. Do you really believe that he wouldn't stretch the truth a bit to get this through congress with as little trouble as possible?

Universal Healthcare is boring...

ReconToaster wrote:
He will, however, be attempting to regulate providers so that they cannot simply turn someone away because they are diabetic... or something of that sort.

Except that... if they are diabetic... they are much more likely to become sick and require help. That will drive up the costs of insurance.

Now, I have nothing against government regulation in this case. I would like a comprehensive bill on what insurance companies have to cover. But I'd like to see us revamp Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare before implementing nationwide healthcare, and see how that works out first.

As a student of history, I know that once this program gets set up, it will NEVER COME DOWN, no matter how wasteful or corrupt it is. It shouldn't be set up in months, but should take at least TWO YEARS, until everyone knows how this is supposed to work.

As for helping the poor... I prefer systems that not only give them opportunities, but put them through and kick them out with skills they can use to get a job. Things like the training to drive trucks, or work on a factory line, or work combines.

tiny tim wrote:no but I'm not the one going around spouting facts about something i haven't read. You are just going purely off of what Obama said. Do you really believe that he wouldn't stretch the truth a bit to get this through congress with as little trouble as possible?

Well then I suppose everyone in this thread is at fault here. Why come after me specifically?

Things like the training to drive trucks, or work on a factory line, or work combines.

Okay Recon, what it all boils down to is that you can't make everyone happy. Total equality, true communism, is an idea that cannot be achieved by humankind.

Medicaid can be raised a bit... but not much. For example: people with diabetes cannot be on the list (at least, not because they're diabetic). My aunt is severely diabetic and she has healthcare. It's not impossible. Now, if someone had type three diabetes and was blind, I'd understand.

I really don't trust our government to handle it appropriately, though. Welfare has already been expanded far beyond what it should be...

ReconToaster wrote:

Things like the training to drive trucks, or work on a factory line, or work combines.

Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean, but a combine is a harvesting machine, usually for wheat or corn (two separate machines, same name)

Moses Lake usually loses five of them PER YEAR to rollover. We have to take them off of harvest and repair them.

its possible to rollover a combine?

I'm...


I'm not sure...

Hold RB to flip... wait, what? How did you do that?

We have universal health care over here; believe me, it would feel distinctly strange to live in a country without it. Come along america, get with the times.

CivBase wrote:
Hold RB to flip

DO A BARREL ROLL!! PRESS A!!!

Rasq wrote:Not quite sure what that's supposed to mean...

It was.... City 17... from Half Life... Half-Life... Combine... see what I'm getting at there?

Rasq wrote:A combine is a harvesting machine, usually for wheat or corn

Well in that case...

noir wrote:We have universal health care over here; believe me, it would feel distinctly strange to live in a country without it. Come along america, get with the times.

How many people live in your country?

not nearly as many, plus he lives in a country with most likely significantly safer/smarter people than america's general populace

What happens if I light my pants on fire?

you gain the ability for your balls and penis to scar over at will and shrivel up

EPIC!!!!!!

Where does he live now?

KristallNacht wrote:its possible to rollover a combine?

Yup. Go down a hill fast enough, or run across the slope of a hill the wrong way, and it WILL roll over. Sure, it's hard to do if you're experienced, but you must NEVER underestimate the creative power of idiots.

but you must NEVER underestimate the creative power of idiots.[/quote]

Jackass (the movie)