PDA

View Full Version : question ?



The Secretary
03-26-2010, 11:24 AM
Why are the same group of people, who were dead set against the government getting involved in their healthcare, thought it immoral that the government should come between them and their doctor, healthcare should be a private decision, yadda,yadda,yadda....all of a sudden thrilled that....the government is going to do just what they railed against. Hmmmmm, I wonder what group that is?

LWW
03-26-2010, 12:28 PM
Could you ask a slightly less muddled version of that question?

LWW

The Secretary
03-26-2010, 01:42 PM
Did the "pro-choice" crowd not rail against government involvement in their health care but now celebrate government involvement in everyone's health care?

LWW
03-26-2010, 01:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the "pro-choice" crowd not rail against government involvement in their health care but now celebrate government involvement in everyone's health care? </div></div>

Now I've got you.

The simple answer is that with doublethink all things become rational, or not, so long as the state says they are rational ... or not.

LWW

Deeman3
03-26-2010, 01:50 PM
I am not an avid anti-abortion person although not a cheerleader for it. However, I think they are concerned that taxpayer dollars will be used for abortions which they morally oppose.

I am not sure that involves a change in their position in government involvement. Many on both sides of the debate, not just right to lifers, but many democrats have issues with the HCR. It is not that simple to break down.

Gayle in MD
03-26-2010, 01:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Did the "pro-choice" crowd not rail against government involvement in their health care but now celebrate government involvement in everyone's health care? </div></div>


The decision of whether or not to bring a fetus to term, isn't the same thing as government being involved in one's health care.

And no, pro choice people never railed against government involvement in their health care. Pro choice people think that since the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to the sole control of her own body, and it's functions, others in this country should respect the laws of our land, and butt out of other people's most personal, private decisions, instead of trying to force their own views, and value judgements, upon other people's lives...


Also, the Health Care Bill isn't a government take over.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congressional Budget Office estimated that for those in the group market — those who get insurance through their employers — premiums would largely stay the same. The change in the average premium in the large group market would be between 0 percent and a 3 percent decrease, for instance, compared with where they’d be under current law in 2016. The average premiums for those who buy insurance on their own would go up, however, by 10 percent to 13 percent. The reason is that benefits would become a lot better for this market under the bill. Also, most people buying their own coverage would receive subsidies that make their net costs for these plans substantially lower than they otherwise would be.

Health Care Summit Squabbles, Feb. 25



It’s government-run health care.

Despite the fact that the federal health insurance plan (a.k.a. the “public option”) is now gone from the bill, Republicans and conservative groups have continued to claim that the bill institutes a system like the one in the United Kingdom, or Canada, or otherwise amounts to a government takeover. It doesn’t. A pure government-run system was never among the leading Democratic proposals, much to the chagrin of single-payer advocates. Instead, the bill builds on our current system of private insurance, and in fact, drums up more business for private companies by mandating that individuals buy coverage and giving many subsidies to do so. There would be increased government regulation of the insurance industry, however, to require companies to cover preexisting conditions, for example. These “government-run” claims have also included heavy criticism of health care in the U.K., such as the outrageous assertion by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop that seniors would be “too old” to qualify for artificial joints and pacemakers in the U.K. The majority of those getting joint replacements and pacemakers in the U.K. are, not surprisingly, seniors.

</div></div>

I might add, Abortion is legal in this country, and in many other countries.

The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G.

pooltchr
03-26-2010, 01:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Pro choice people think that since the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to the sole control of her own body, and it's functions, others in this country should respect the laws of our land,
G. </div></div>

Did you respect the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount in Florida?

Steve

LWW
03-26-2010, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Pro choice people think that since the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to the sole control of her own body, and it's functions, others in this country should respect the laws of our land,
G. </div></div>

Did you respect the Supreme Court decision to stop the recount in Florida?

Steve </div></div>

Now you know you just caused a brain to short circuit.

LWW

pooltchr
03-26-2010, 02:58 PM
You give me too much credit. I think that probably happened quite some time ago.

Steve

Sev
03-26-2010, 02:59 PM
Actually there is talk of organizing a "We want it now. We want it all" campaign.

Basis of the campaign is that since reform has passed it is discriminatory to collect taxes for health care while at the same time delaying the execution of much of the legislation.
The argument will also state that by delaying portions of the legislation it will cause both unnecessary suffering and possible deaths of American citizens that could otherwise be treated.

After all the point of health care reform is to save lives and provide both more reliable and cost effective treatment to those in need.

One would have to conclude that if the reforms in the legislation are not enacted immediately the government by design is viewing currently ill American citizens as being expendable.

Deeman3
03-26-2010, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Last week, I thought it was health care... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

Sev
03-26-2010, 03:04 PM
Then by extension the goverment forcing health care on the people takes ones right of control over ones body away from the individual.

Gayle in MD
03-26-2010, 03:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Last week, I thought it was health care... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

Societies in various nations decide the value of their citizens' experience of life according to the social level of compassion for the less fortunate, and overall emotional feelings of empathy, for their fellow citizens.

Our current President, most American Citizens, and the majority of our representatives, believe that in the richest country in the world, it is a disgrace that we pay far, far more for health care, yet rank far lower than other nations, in many of the core factors of analysis, yet these other countries manage to provide health care for all of thier people, yet with a fraction of the wealth and resources that we have.

There really is no way to compare the two subjects, which I"m sure you know.

One's own body, one's ownership of that body, one's Personal Privacy, and their right to own fully their body and experience of life, along with their right and liberty to control their own body, their own pursuit of happiness, and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty.

One's ownership of one's own thoughts and person, is the most basic human right.

It is the place of Government to legislate in the interests of common good, and to step in to advance regulations, and decisions, for the people, what individuals cannot do alone.

Even the animals form groups to advance and insure the success of their survival.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



G.

Deeman3
03-26-2010, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Last week, I thought it was health care... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

Societies in various nations decide the value of their citizens' experience of life according to the social level of compassion for the less fortunate, and overall emotional feelings of empathy, for their fellow citizens.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> As do we all. </span>

Our current President, most American Citizens, and the majority of our representatives, believe that in the richest country in the world, <span style="color: #FF0000"> perhas not for long</span> it is a disgrace that we pay far, far more for health care, yet rank far lower than other nations, in many of the core factors of analysis, yet these other countries manage to provide health care for all of thier people, yet with a fraction of the wealth and resources that we have.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> There are as you say, many factors that go into health care stastics, national wealth being only one. </span>

There really is no way to compare the two subjects, which I"m sure you know.

One's own body, one's ownership of that body, one's Personal Privacy, and their right to own fully their body and experience of life, along with their right and liberty to control their own body, their own pursuit of happiness, and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't argue much aganst that but many people want those rights but other people to pay for them. </span>

One's ownership of one's own thoughts and person, is the most basic human right.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I am not aware of anyone wanting to take that from them, certainly not me. </span>

It is the place of Government to legislate in the interests of common good, and to step in to advance regulations, and decisions, for the people, what individuals cannot do alone.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> So, why is not everything free and available to all? Why do we not just split all resources down the middle with everyone? </span>

Even the animals form groups to advance and insure the success of their survival.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Well, they mostly eat each other for survival and I am not sure how they view abortions but for certain, they do not share by Democratic standards. Not even the lemmings.</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



G.

</div></div>

eg8r
03-26-2010, 03:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The decision of whether or not to bring a fetus to term, isn't the same thing as government being involved in one's health care. </div></div>News flash gayle, the government is the body that allows a woman to make that choice. You like to use the example that baby killing should be acceptable if the mothers life is in danger. Well before the government said it was Ok they were involved in that mother's healthcare.

eg8r

LWW
03-26-2010, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually there is talk of organizing a "We want it now. We want it all" campaign.</div></div>

I have an Obamatron tenant who is uber pizzed that they aren't covered now.

In the meantime, Obama and the dems continue to allow over 100 Americans to die each day because they selfishly hold back care.

LWW

The Secretary
03-26-2010, 04:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty</div></div>

then why should I be forced to buy health insurance?

pooltchr
03-26-2010, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty</div></div>

then why should I be forced to buy health insurance? </div></div>

Because Obama says you should. It's for your own good, only you are too stupid to know it. Listen to Obama...he knows what is best for you!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
Steve

Sev
03-26-2010, 06:06 PM
Exactly what communist governments do. Tell the people what is good for them.

We live in a representative government. Where the representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people.
It is also supposed to be a limited government which bound to the limitations set upon it by the constitution.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2010, 03:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Last week, I thought it was health care... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

Societies in various nations decide the value of their citizens' experience of life according to the social level of compassion for the less fortunate, and overall emotional feelings of empathy, for their fellow citizens.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> As do we all. </span>
<span style="color: #000066">Who is WE? Surely not the Republican Party. </span>
Our current President, most American Citizens, and the majority of our representatives, believe that in the richest country in the world, <span style="color: #FF0000"> perhas not for long</span> it is a disgrace that we pay far, far more for health care, yet rank far lower than other nations, in many of the core factors of analysis, yet these other countries manage to provide health care for all of thier people, yet with a fraction of the wealth and resources that we have.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> There are as you say, many factors that go into health care stastics, national wealth being only one. </span>

<span style="color: #000066">Yes, I believe I addressed that factor, the comparison of money spent, to services available, and we are not doing well at all in that department. </span>

There really is no way to compare the two subjects, which I"m sure you know.

One's own body, one's ownership of that body, one's Personal Privacy, and their right to own fully their body and experience of life, along with their right and liberty to control their own body, their own pursuit of happiness, and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I don't argue much aganst that but many people want those rights but other people to pay for them. </span>

<span style="color: #000066">You mean Corporations, of course, who want other people to pay for their rights? </span>

One's ownership of one's own thoughts and person, is the most basic human right.

<span style="color: #FF0000">I am not aware of anyone wanting to take that from them, certainly not me. </span>

<span style="color: #000066">The Anti choice people want to dictate to all others, according to their opinions. </span>

It is the place of Government to legislate in the interests of common good, and to step in to advance regulations, and decisions, for the people, what individuals cannot do alone.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> So, why is not everything free and available to all? Why do we not just split all resources down the middle with everyone? </span>

<span style="color: #000066">Because we believe in a free market system, but it gets screwed up because Republicans don't want any regulations to keep it honest. Then Republicans bail out the thieves. Reagan? Bush? </span>

Even the animals form groups to advance and insure the success of their survival.

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Well, they mostly eat each other for survival and I am not sure how they view abortions but for certain, they do not share by Democratic standards. Not even the lemmings.</span>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif



</div></div>You havn't done much fishing, have you.... </div></div>

pooltchr
03-27-2010, 08:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Anti choice people

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Nice attempt to paint people who believe in protecting all human life in the negative, but it won't fly.</span>

Because we believe in a free market system,</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> LMAO!!! You think government needs to control the banks, the insurance industry, the oil and gas companies, restaurants, bars, pool rooms, and virtually every other business they can get their hands on, and then have the nerve to say you believe in the free market system???

Unbelievable!!!

Steve
</span>

LWW
03-27-2010, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The right to control one's own body, is the most basic, core human right.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Last week, I thought it was health care... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span> </div></div>

It is whatever the party says it is, subject to change.

LWW

LWW
03-27-2010, 08:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Anti choice people

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Nice attempt to paint people who believe in protecting all human life in the negative, but it won't fly.</span>

Because we believe in a free market system,</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000"> LMAO!!! You think government needs to control the banks, the insurance industry, the oil and gas companies, restaurants, bars, pool rooms, and virtually every other business they can get their hands on, and then have the nerve to say you believe in the free market system???

Unbelievable!!!

Steve
</span> </div></div>

When will you learn Steve ... with doublethink all things are possible.

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-27-2010, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> and their right to SELF-DETERMINATION, all are very basic, core principles of freedom and liberty</div></div>

Then why should I be forced to buy health insurance? </div></div>

Because those who do not get health insurance, have a huge impact on causing costs for everyone else to rise, if they become ill, or have an accident, everyone else pays for their uninsured care.

Part of the reason why costs have risen so much is because too many people without insurance, use emergency room services, usually the most expensive treatment by far, instead of being responsible enough to pay for it themselves. It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G.

llotter
03-27-2010, 09:09 AM
If I had my own insurance company, I wouldn't cover anyone with preexisting conditions and it also makes sense to put a cap on total expenses. I guess private contracts, the essence of the free market, have passed into history along with our liberties.

Gayle in MD
03-27-2010, 09:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I had my own insurance company, I wouldn't cover anyone with preexisting conditions and it also makes sense to put a cap on total expenses. I guess private contracts, the essence of the free market, have passed into history along with our liberties. </div></div>

Why don't you tell us one damn liberty you think you have lost?

Just one.

You want Americans to have the liberty to pay exorbitant costs for health insurance, the highest in the world, fill the pockets of Health Insurers who contract with them to cover their costs if they become ill, but drop them when they do get ill.

Just who's liberty are you concerned with?

G.

wolfdancer
03-27-2010, 10:15 AM
Gayle, you are wasting your time arguing with him. What I get from his posts is that there are 3 distinct classes of people....the rich & super rich, the middle class, and the "dirt farmers". The first two groups are God's chosen, while the latter group are only useful as cannon fodder in the event of hostilities. In peacetime, they are a dreg on society, and if they are dying in the streets, that is what they deserve.
Health insurance is only for healthy people,....you can't expect insurers to cut into their bottom line, by actually having to pay out for medical expenses.
Wonder if that idea will catch on for life ins?....you are covered until you die, and then the policy becomes void...because it is "Life" insurance...."death" insurance being an entirely different policy.

pooltchr
03-27-2010, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G. </div></div>

It's not the same thing at all. First of all, not everyone has to have automobile insurance, only people who choose to own a car. Secondly, the only insurance that is REQUIRED is insurance to pay for any damages to others that might be caused by you. You are under no obligation to carry insurance to cover any damage done to you or your property as a result of your actions.

There is a big difference.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-27-2010, 10:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Gayle, you are wasting your time arguing with him. What I get from his posts is that there are 3 distinct classes of people....the rich & super rich, the middle class, and the "dirt farmers". The first two groups are God's chosen, while the latter group are only useful as cannon fodder in the event of hostilities. In peacetime, they are a dreg on society, and if they are dying in the streets, that is what they deserve.
Health insurance is only for healthy people,....you can't expect insurers to cut into their bottom line, by actually having to pay out for medical expenses.
Wonder if that idea will catch on for life ins?....you are covered until you die, and then the policy becomes void...because it is "Life" insurance...."death" insurance being an entirely different policy. </div></div>

Yes, I think you are right. When they start out with the premise that not having insurance has no negative impact on all of the rest of us, who do pay for it, and have to absorb their financial costs because they refuse to be responsible, one can easily see one is dealing with someone who had no common sense, at all.

Beware of zealots, they start wars!

G.

LWW
03-27-2010, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Secondly, the only insurance that is REQUIRED is insurance to pay for any damages to others that might be caused by you.

Steve </div></div>

Even that is an overstatement in many/most states.

In Ohio for example, liability insurance is not a requirement of the law. It's simply the way most people choose to fulfill the law.

The other option is to post a cash/property bond with the state covering the state minimum requirement.

Many well off people do this and then carry no other coverage, or coverage with a deductible of the amount of the bond.

And even then, insurance is only required if you drive a motor vehicle.

LWW

pooltchr
03-27-2010, 02:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
When they start out with the premise that not having insurance has no negative impact on all of the rest of us, who do pay for it, and have to absorb their financial costs because they refuse to be responsible, one can easily see one is dealing with someone who had no common sense, at all.

Beware of zealots, they start wars!

G.

</div></div>

Kinda the way I feel about people who refuse to be responsible and work for a living, and then expect the rest of us who do work to support them with our tax dollars.

If you want to force everyone to be responsible, maybe we should pass a law that forces every American to get a job!

Maybe we should force everyone to get an education.

How much government force do you want to use in the name of making individuals become responsible for their own actions?

By the way, who do you think is going to end up paying for all those irresponsible people who didn't want insurance but are now going to be forced to get it. I guess those evil rich people can just take care of all the rest!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Steve

Sev
03-27-2010, 10:32 PM
TN does not require auto insurance.

Oh but I forgot I'm in the south and they are just dumb and ignorant.

Funny though that TN's economic standing is pretty good right now.
Hows the N-E doing???

Sev
03-27-2010, 10:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If I had my own insurance company, I wouldn't cover anyone with preexisting conditions and it also makes sense to put a cap on total expenses. I guess private contracts, the essence of the free market, have passed into history along with our liberties. </div></div>

Why don't you tell us one damn liberty you think you have lost?

Just one.

You want Americans to have the liberty to pay exorbitant costs for health insurance, the highest in the world, fill the pockets of Health Insurers who contract with them to cover their costs if they become ill, but drop them when they do get ill.

Just who's liberty are you concerned with?

G. </div></div>

When the government demands that you purchase a product against your will it is called tyranny.

Funny how individuals preach moral obligation when their wallets are a concern.

sack316
03-28-2010, 07:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Part of the reason why costs have risen so much is because too many people without insurance, use emergency room services, usually the most expensive treatment by far, instead of being responsible enough to pay for it themselves. It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G. </div></div>

You know, that's an excellent point. I believe most (if not all?) states require drivers to have at least liability auto insurance. Most lenders require full coverage while you are financing a vehicle.

As you said, it is the same principle as HC. Auto insurance premiums have GONE UP the last several years, and are expected to go up again this year.

Sack

LWW
03-28-2010, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Part of the reason why costs have risen so much is because too many people without insurance, use emergency room services, usually the most expensive treatment by far, instead of being responsible enough to pay for it themselves. It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G. </div></div>

You know, that's an excellent point. I believe most (if not all?) states require drivers to have at least liability auto insurance. Most lenders require full coverage while you are financing a vehicle.

As you said, it is the same principle as HC. Auto insurance premiums have GONE UP the last several years, and are expected to go up again this year.

Sack </div></div>

Sorry, but it's absolutely bogus on several points.

1 - The federal government has no requirement that anyone carry any auto insurance at all. Under the 10th amendment, this is clearly a state's rights issue as the COTUS gives the feds no power to require insurance of any kind, although it leaves it open to the individual states to require it.

2 - The individual states only require auto insurance if you own and operate an automobile. Those who do not have no legal obligation.

3 - The individual states require only that you insure yourself against injury/damage to another's person or property. No coverage of one's own self or property is required.

4 - What the bank requires has no relevance as that is private party to private party contract. I am under no obligation to buy the car at all, and under no obligation to finance it if I do.

This is a smoke screen routinely trotted out by the far left, and it demonstrates that they either have a great willingness to deceive and/or have no clue what they are talking about.

LWW

ugotda7
03-28-2010, 08:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Part of the reason why costs have risen so much is because too many people without insurance, use emergency room services, usually the most expensive treatment by far, instead of being responsible enough to pay for it themselves. It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G. </div></div>

You know, that's an excellent point. I believe most (if not all?) states require drivers to have at least liability auto insurance. Most lenders require full coverage while you are financing a vehicle.

As you said, it is the same principle as HC. Auto insurance premiums have GONE UP the last several years, and are expected to go up again this year.

Sack </div></div>

Sorry, but it's absolutely bogus on several points.

1 - The federal government has no requirement that anyone carry any auto insurance at all. Under the 10th amendment, this is clearly a state's rights issue as the COTUS gives the feds no power to require insurance of any kind, although it leaves it open to the individual states to require it.

2 - The individual states only require auto insurance if you own and operate an automobile. Those who do not have no legal obligation.

3 - The individual states require only that you insure yourself against injury/damage to another's person or property. No coverage of one's own self or property is required.

4 - What the bank requires has no relevance as that is private party to private party contract. I am under no obligation to buy the car at all, and under no obligation to finance it if I do.

This is a smoke screen routinely trotted out by the far left, and it demonstrates that they either have a great willingness to deceive and/or have no clue what they are talking about.

LWW </div></div>


My vote is for no clue what they're talking about.

sack316
03-28-2010, 08:39 AM
I was only drawing the correlation as an example that "requiring" (which I agree is not so valid in comparing auto vs. health), but the theory that increasing the consumer pool automatically equates to lower premiums, isn't always the case.

We can look at auto insurance, and we know the customer base has risen dramatically in recent years due to such requirements. Going by what has been said about "insuring everyone", and them saying it will lower premiums, we should see a similar occurrence on the smaller scale of auto premiums. But we don't. We actually see "bigger pool, rising premiums".

Sack

pooltchr
03-28-2010, 08:50 AM
And to follow that line of reasoning, adding 30 million to the insurance pool is also going to result in more claims being filed and paid for. And as the largest segment of our population reaches senior citizen status, the number, and size of those claims is going to continue to grow.

It's the same principle as we now face with social security. The amount being paid into the program will not match the amount being paid out.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-28-2010, 09:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Part of the reason why costs have risen so much is because too many people without insurance, use emergency room services, usually the most expensive treatment by far, instead of being responsible enough to pay for it themselves. It is the same principle involved in why you must have automobile insurance.

G. </div></div>

You know, that's an excellent point. I believe most (if not all?) states require drivers to have at least liability auto insurance. Most lenders require full coverage while you are financing a vehicle.

As you said, it is the same principle as HC. Auto insurance premiums have GONE UP the last several years, and are expected to go up again this year.

Sack </div></div>

I see your point, Sack, and it is true, that what we actually need as far as health cares is concerned is a single payer system, or at the very least, a public option, which would increase competition. There was not a chance of getting that through, this time, so the Administration and the Congress, calculated that just getting the Bill through, to agree to reform our health care in our country, documented, that it was a priority, which it was and is, for most Americans, not all Americans like the current bill, granted, but it does prevent some of the insurance mistreatment of consumers.

The effort, as I have been assured by several in the Congress, is to get things underway, and continue to add amendments...and continue to perfect the reform.

I believe we will move toward single payer, and I believe that will in fact drive down costs, as it has in other countries.

This effort is going to be an on-going work in progress. Nothing is set in stone as things are right now. The one thing you can be sure of is that corporate power, is choking out our economy, through corrupt practices, and unwarranted high costs. This is true from Wall Stree, to the gas tank, to health insurance, and prescription costs, but costs for health insurance, prescriptions drugs, and health care in general, are destroying our economy, and with health insurance, the way they inadvertantly just hike up their charges, dropping people helter skelter, refusing those who need health inusrance the most, something HAD TO BE DONE!

Is it perfect? Hell no, there is loads of stuff wrong with it, and lots of changes will be made to it.

While I believe in a free market, I do not support corruption. I am against corporate socialism, and that is exactly what we have had going for over a decade, subsidizing corporations who gouge the public, and outsource jobs, and gamble with our investments, without conscience, on Wall Street, thanks to a lapsed regulatory system, and an administration which had a philosophy, to use Greenspans own words, and Bush's, an ownership society, deregulatory policies on banks and financial institutions, and as Greenspans stated, he did not care about fraud!!!!!

Now, tell me what kid of signal did Big Business get from that kind of ideology?

We all got screwed, because our government went too damn far with the whiole "Free Market" BS, and failed to oversee the legitimacy of their solvency, and their radical loaning without enough back up. The CDS's were far out of line. It nearly brough us to the brink, well, it did bring us to the brink. All of this Too Big to Fail, has to be reigned in.

As I have said all along, I am all for a free merket, for the love of Pete, I've been in business since we were in our early twenties! How could I not be for a free market, and free choices in life, but as I have also stated for years, Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves, the GOVERNMENT MUST OVERSEE AND REGULATE THE MARKETPLACE!

If they do not, we'll have more poison in our food, more filth going into our rivers and oceans, more thieves bilking the country on Wall Street, more health care insurance companies with heartless decisions to drop people right when they need insurance the most, just as they screwed over the people in New Orleans, on their home owners insurance with all of their corruption and BS.

Insurance is a lot like religion, as far as I'm concerned, it's a racket!

Why do you think the oil companies refuse to build more refineries?????


I'm not anti-business at all, I am anti-corrupt business practices. There is a huge difference!

G.

LWW
03-28-2010, 09:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was only drawing the correlation as an example that "requiring" (which I agree is not so valid in comparing auto vs. health), but the theory that increasing the consumer pool automatically equates to lower premiums, isn't always the case.

We can look at auto insurance, and we know the customer base has risen dramatically in recent years due to such requirements. Going by what has been said about "insuring everyone", and them saying it will lower premiums, we should see a similar occurrence on the smaller scale of auto premiums. But we don't. We actually see "bigger pool, rising premiums".

Sack </div></div>

Gotcha ... and yes, that's true.

Believe it or not, in Ohio, drivers who are uninsurable due to their driving record qualify to join a "POOL" where insurance companies are required to take so many of these uninsurable drivers each year and insure them at standard rates.

We wouldn't want people with multiple ... I've seen cases of folks with over 20 ... DUI/DWI convictions having to not be able to drive or carry insurance.

The costs of this ... according to the leftists who believe int his stuff ... are "ABSORBED" by the insurance companies and not passed along to responsible citizens. The fact that this law has driven premiums higher is blamed on the "GREED" of the insurers.

To add insult to injury, if you are employed and caught without insurance you are fined and forced to get it ... however if you are a welfare recipient and caught without insurance you are sent to a class.

The simple answer would be to jail habitual offenders ... but, they tend to vote for anyone with the (D) following there name on the ballot.

LWW

pooltchr
03-28-2010, 10:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Why do you think the oil companies refuse to build more refineries?????

G.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Because the over regulation of the industry by the government has made it nearly impossible to make enough profit to cover the huge initial capital outlay required to build them.

Building refineries is not a smart business decision in this country.

Steve</span>





</div></div>

LWW
03-28-2010, 10:15 AM
We are all so much better off allowing the refineries to be built in nation's with eco laws superior to ours ... such as Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China.

LWW

sack316
03-28-2010, 11:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm not anti-business at all, I am anti-corrupt business practices. there is a huge difference!
</div></div>

I think we all feel that way.

And also, the flipside, most of us righties here aren't anti-government.... we are anti-corrupt and inept government. If our government had any kind of previous track record of running an effective and efficient practice, I'd be more than happy for them to have their hand at overseeing (heck even running) most anything. But sans the Hoover Dam project, they haven't done much on time or under budget.

I, too, worry about corrupt business and their effects. But the thought that a private entity has the prospect of losing something is a check that I like. They can lose contracts, clients, money, whatever. The gov't can actually be free of such worries. JMHO.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-28-2010, 11:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm not anti-business at all, I am anti-corrupt business practices. there is a huge difference!
</div></div>

I think we all feel that way.

And also, the flipside, most of us righties here aren't anti-government.... we are anti-corrupt and inept government. If our government had any kind of previous track record of running an effective and efficient practice, I'd be more than happy for them to have their hand at overseeing (heck even running) most anything. But sans the Hoover Dam project, they haven't done much on time or under budget.

I, too, worry about corrupt business and their effects. But the thought that a private entity has the prospect of losing something is a check that I like. They can lose contracts, clients, money, whatever. The gov't can actually be free of such worries. JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

Well, this last Wall Street mass theft, doesn't show me that, at all, Sack. The big guys at the top, took their money and ran. It was a failure of government oversight, under the Bush Administration, any way you slice it.

Greenspan admitted that he never dreamed these idiots would hang themselves, acting against their own best interests, and everyone elses'.

There were numerous warnings, and one of the regulators in stated, that since it was against Bush's Ownership olicies, the powers that be, backed down on stopping these guys before things got out of hand.

You can't possibly be saying, after everything we've seen these last two years, that you don't think government oversight of the markets, is needed?

G.

sack316
03-28-2010, 02:51 PM
I'm not saying that I don't think it is needed.

Sack

Gayle in MD
03-28-2010, 06:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

I'm not anti-business at all, I am anti-corrupt business practices. there is a huge difference!
</div></div>

I think we all feel that way.

And also, the flipside, most of us righties here aren't anti-government.... we are anti-corrupt and inept government. If our government had any kind of previous track record of running an effective and efficient practice, I'd be more than happy for them to have their hand at overseeing (heck even running) most anything. But sans the Hoover Dam project, they haven't done much on time or under budget.

I, too, worry about corrupt business and their effects. But the thought that a private entity has the prospect of losing something is a check that I like. They can lose contracts, clients, money, whatever. The gov't can actually be free of such worries. JMHO.

Sack </div></div>

AGain, all I can say is that we had no choice about TARP, nor about reforming Health Care, Prescriptions Drugs, and Health Insurance. They all just got too greedy, as have some Doctors. Ridiculous prices on all sides. Believe me, the nurses see plenty of it. I've seen too many women in tears because they were dropped, while fighting cancer, and couldnt' get coverage anywhere else. Too many Americans have lost any hope for coverage, and lost everything just because they became ill.

The Automobile Industry is also important. We can't just look the other way, and let our manufacturing industry die.

I don't recall anyone calling Reagan a socialist, when he bailed out the Savings and Loans, do you?

As for the bankers, financial and health insurance industries, prescription drugs, credit card companies, mortgage writers, all of them involved in unfair practices which hurt the economy and the consumer.

Corporations cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. If we haven't learned that, we might just as well give up on all of it, IMO.

G.

pooltchr
03-28-2010, 09:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I don't recall anyone calling Reagan a socialist, when he bailed out the Savings and Loans, do you?


G.
</div></div>
The bailouts weren't a take over of an industry, although he has stuck his nose into the salaries of anyone who got the money....money, by the way, that the government FORCED the banks to take.

Steve

Sev
03-28-2010, 09:50 PM
HAHAHHAAHHAAHHAHAH!!!!

That is just rich. You are killing me.