Quote:
Oh and Palin and Rush are some of the only ones giving us the actual story rather than the liberal lies the msm continue to push.
Palin and Limbaugh are the main stream media, genius.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obamacare will save us all. Unless your this women.
Obamacare will save us all. Unless your this women.Follow
Palin and Limbaugh are the main stream media, genius.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
BrownDuck wrote:
The key point to take away here is that existing government systems can and do fail.
Existing bureaucratic systems fail, period. Be they public or private sector. But a highly publicized case such as this should serve as an impetus to fix the system, not scrap it. Better communication between the SSA & DHHS, some sort of ceiling increase available in a case like this, etc.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Samira wrote:
Quote:
Oh and Palin and Rush are some of the only ones giving us the actual story rather than the liberal lies the msm continue to push.
Palin and Limbaugh are the main stream media, genius.
Ambrya,
Actually I was making the point that Obamacare is forcing doctors out which will obviously reduce number of people who will be cared for.
Not surprised that you couldn't connect one and one and come up with two.
Quote:
Ah, okay, now I see his point. If we leave those millions of people presently without insurance uncovered, then they won't have to deal with the odd bureaucratic bungle.
Actually I was making the point that Obamacare is forcing doctors out which will obviously reduce number of people who will be cared for.
Not surprised that you couldn't connect one and one and come up with two.
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
The key point to take away here is that existing government systems can and do fail.
Existing bureaucratic systems fail, period. Be they public or private sector. But a highly publicized case such as this should serve as an impetus to fix the system, not scrap it. Better communication between the SSA & DHHS, some sort of ceiling increase available in a case like this, etc.
I agree 100%. It's healthy to say "Hmm, there might be an issue worth investigating here...". It's not healthy to say, just for example:
Quote:
Well, it's stupid on its face. Were she covered by health care, either government or private, this would be a non-story.
The issue at hand is that she was covered, and through some error of the system, was denied coverage by a serious of unfortunate events.
Brownduck,
How do you know it was an error?
Quote:
The issue at hand is that she was covered, and through some error of the system, was denied coverage by a serious of unfortunate events.
How do you know it was an error?
Ambrya wrote:
gbaji wrote:
His point is that Obamacare effectively puts more people under medicare. It was medicare which denied this woman coverage. Please tell me you see how this might be relevant?
Ah, okay, now I see his point. If we leave those millions of people presently without insurance uncovered, then they won't have to deal with the odd bureaucratic bungle.
Most of those without insurance choose not to buy it. A choice that is being taken away from them. Additionally, many times more people who currently get their insurance through a private provider will end out being shifted to a government run "alternative" as a result of the cost structures in the bill.
Think about it. Every single person who is currently paying for private insurance who has a low enough income to qualify under the new system will drop their current health care and take the "public option". That's not an accident. It's by design. Therefore, we're not just adding new care to those who don't have it. We're replacing the existing care system for a large number of Americans. And many of them will not have a choice. A lot of employers who currently pay for health care for their employees will also find it to be cheaper to drop that coverage and let their employees be covered by the government system.
The point being that when these issues were brought up during the debate, the universal response was that private health care insurers were bad anyway because they might deny care, while the government would not. So yeah. This story is relevant.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Brownduck,
How do you know it was an error?
Quote:
The issue at hand is that she was covered, and through some error of the system, was denied coverage by a serious of unfortunate events.
How do you know it was an error?
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Ambrya,
Actually I was making the point that Obamacare is forcing doctors out which will obviously reduce number of people who will be cared for.
Not surprised that you couldn't connect one and one and come up with two.
Quote:
Ah, okay, now I see his point. If we leave those millions of people presently without insurance uncovered, then they won't have to deal with the odd bureaucratic bungle.
Actually I was making the point that Obamacare is forcing doctors out which will obviously reduce number of people who will be cared for.
Not surprised that you couldn't connect one and one and come up with two.
Apparently you don't do reading comprehension, either, or you would know that the "he" referenced in the post was Rush Limbaugh, as I was replying to gbaji's attempts to paraphrase his meaning.
gbaji wrote:
Most of those without insurance choose not to buy it.
Right. They make a choice to put food in their mouths instead.
Quote:
A choice that is being taken away from them.
Right. Now they can have food AND insurance, and if they can't afford both, the insurance will be subsidized for them. The HORROR!!
Quote:
Additionally, many times more people who currently get their insurance through a private provider will end out being shifted to a government run "alternative" as a result of the cost structures in the bill.
The average American will gravitate toward the cheapest acceptable option. That's a personal choice, not a government requirement.
Quote:
Every single person who is currently paying for private insurance who has a low enough income to qualify under the new system will drop their current health care and take the "public option". That's not an accident. It's by design.
That is a choice being given to them, not taken away.
Quote:
Therefore, we're not just adding new care to those who don't have it. We're replacing the existing care system for a large number of Americans.
If they choose...
Quote:
And many of them will not have a choice.
Those who have no choice had no choice prior to the new bill, either.
gbaji wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
gbaji wrote:
His point is that Obamacare effectively puts more people under medicare. It was medicare which denied this woman coverage. Please tell me you see how this might be relevant?
Ah, okay, now I see his point. If we leave those millions of people presently without insurance uncovered, then they won't have to deal with the odd bureaucratic bungle.
Most of those without insurance choose not to buy it.
...
Are you really that out of touch with reality?
Jophiel wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
The key point to take away here is that existing government systems can and do fail.
Existing bureaucratic systems fail, period. Be they public or private sector.
Funny that you never mentioned this when arguing about private insurers denying care as a reason why we should shift to government care...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Gbaji believes everyone that doesn't buy insurance uses that money for rims, weaves, and crack.
And before Varus chimes in, yes I know you believe that as well.
Edited, Apr 13th 2010 3:49pm by baelnic
And before Varus chimes in, yes I know you believe that as well.
Edited, Apr 13th 2010 3:49pm by baelnic
Ambrya,
I definitly have narcissistic tendencies if that's what you're getting at. I naturally assume everything is about me and everyone is talking to me. Is that wrong?
I definitly have narcissistic tendencies if that's what you're getting at. I naturally assume everything is about me and everyone is talking to me. Is that wrong?
Bael,
and fried chicken.
Quote:
Gbaji believes everyone that doesn't buy insurance uses that money for rims, weaves, and crack.
and fried chicken.
Ambrya wrote:
Quote:
Most of those without insurance choose not to buy it.
Are you really that out of touch with reality?
No. I'm not. Remember. I'm looking at the status quo prior to the new health care bill. I actually need to add that they either choose not to take medicare for which they are already qualified, and of the remainder *most* choose not to buy health insurance (but could afford it).
When you look only at those who do not qualify for medicare as it exists now, but who are not currently covered by health insurance, it's quite obvious that most of them choose not to buy it. Either they are young and figure they can save money, or they make enough to just pay their own way. In fact, the percentage of people who don't have health insurance increases the higher the income level.
I can provide links to sources if you want, but feel free to do your own research on the subject. The point I'm making is that the massive changes, specifically the mandate to have health insurance, was unnecessary and violates people's freedoms.
Edited, Apr 13th 2010 3:00pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
baelnic wrote:
Gbaji believes everyone that doesn't buy insurance uses that money for rims, weaves, and crack.
No. Most of them are in their 20s and early 30s, don't have children yet, and choose to keep the money rather than sign on to a health plan if one is provided. Of those working for employers who don't offer health care, those who earn enough not to qualify for medicare could purchase insurance separately, but many choose not to (for the same reasons). There's actually only a narrow range of income where you make enough not to qualify for medicare, but for which purchase of insurance is not possible.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Let me add one more point to this:
If this were not the case, then why the mandate? Why would the government need to make it illegal to choose not to buy health insurance if there weren't a significant number of people who make that choice. Engage your brains. They know that those who cost the least to the health care system (healthy people in their 20s) overwhelmingly choose not to buy health insurance. By forcing them to buy health insurance, the government can gain a net positive in terms of total revenue into the system.
It's exactly this group who will foot the bulk of the bill for the expanded health care btw. That's why I've pointed out in the past that all you young liberals on this board working part time jobs are the ones who'll be screwed by this. You're going to find that your going to lose a good portion of your income and get *nothing* in return. How does it feel to be suckered?
If this were not the case, then why the mandate? Why would the government need to make it illegal to choose not to buy health insurance if there weren't a significant number of people who make that choice. Engage your brains. They know that those who cost the least to the health care system (healthy people in their 20s) overwhelmingly choose not to buy health insurance. By forcing them to buy health insurance, the government can gain a net positive in terms of total revenue into the system.
It's exactly this group who will foot the bulk of the bill for the expanded health care btw. That's why I've pointed out in the past that all you young liberals on this board working part time jobs are the ones who'll be screwed by this. You're going to find that your going to lose a good portion of your income and get *nothing* in return. How does it feel to be suckered?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
Quote:
Most of those without insurance choose not to buy it.
Are you really that out of touch with reality?
No. I'm not. Remember. I'm looking at the status quo prior to the new health care bill. I actually need to add that they either choose not to take medicare for which they are already qualified, and of the remainder *most* choose not to buy health insurance (but could afford it).
And speaking of crack...whoo! Just what have you been smoking, gbaji?
gbaji wrote:
Funny that you never mentioned this when arguing about private insurers denying care as a reason why we should shift to government care...
Private sector insurance companies aren't denying care based on snafus with other departments.
I mean, I'm sure they have their paperwork errors the same as everyone else but that doesn't account for the thrust of the complaints against them. I'm not sure what's "funny" about that but whatever cracks you up, I guess.
gbaji wrote:
If this were not the case, then why the mandate? Why would the government need to make it illegal to choose not to buy health insurance if there weren't a significant number of people who make that choice.
Because refusing to pay into the system until you need it isn't a very smart way to keep a system running. Regardless of whether you're 21 or 31 or 61. You should engage your brain.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Think about it. Every single person who is currently paying for private insurance who has a low enough income to qualify under the new system will drop their current health care and take the "public option".
Again, it's astounding how poorly you understand the legislation.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Think about it. Every single person who is currently paying for private insurance who has a low enough income to qualify under the new system will drop their current health care and take the "public option".
Again, it's astounding how poorly you understand the legislation.
Edited, Apr 13th 2010 5:50pm by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Quote:
If this were not the case, then why the mandate? Why would the government need to make it illegal to choose not to buy health insurance if there weren't a significant number of people who make that choice.
It was a bargaining chip for the insurance industry. Why do you think this mandate is going to hurt the private sector? It's going to give them millions of new customers and give them billions in new profits.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Funny that you never mentioned this when arguing about private insurers denying care as a reason why we should shift to government care...
Private sector insurance companies aren't denying care based on snafus with other departments.
That's because they don't have "death panels" deciding who gets care. ;)
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#76gbaji,
Posted: Apr 13 2010 at 5:08 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm pretty sure I understand it better than you Joph. How about you try to explain why someone who did not qualify for medicare/medicaid prior to this bill but who does now, would continue to pay into a private health insurance plan? Cause that's what you seem to think wont happen...
Recent Visitors: 239
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (239)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Obamacare will save us all. Unless your this women.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC