the new health care?

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

No, no.

First of all, the term "assault weapon" is redundant. If you mean semi-automatic rifles then the analogy still doesn't fit because there were certainly doctors in their age. So it's not as if they couldn't envision doctors they way they couldn't envision automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

And no, I don't believe they had to specifically mention all the rights the people are entitled to. That's what the Ninth Amendment was for. But to use the general welfare clause to imply that everybody gets the services of a doctor, nurse or hospital free of charge, is to seriously misunderstand the Constitution and everything the Founders established.

It's like that huh? I am more than willing to refer to them as "automatic weapons" if that makes you feel better. Oh and how about the government has got better weapons, and I want a rocket luncher.

Seriously dude, the highlighted text is one big incoherent statement. You affirm that they don't have to mention everything specifically, you refer to service rendered by the government as "free of charge" and then proceed to throw in baseless rhetoric about not understanding the Constitution and the Founders intentions.

My father always told me "never misrepresent yourself."

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Taxpayers, just like we do now. We all pay taxes to fund our state's Medicaid program.

The trick is to tweak that program to incent the poor to use preventative care services. Successfully doing so would reduce the tax burden on all of us.

That said, doing so is much easier said than done. One of the biggest barriers preventing the poor from seeking preventative care is basic transportation. For many, if they can't walk to it, they're not interested. (And in that case I'm inclined to say eff 'em, let 'em die of pneumonia, but that doesn't really fly.)

I bet if you gave them $40.00 to come in and get a check up every year the doctors would have a line out the door.

[dmek25]

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by dmek25

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

I often get the sense you're pissed there are rich and successful people in this country...but maybe that's just me

[dmek25]

it doesnt piss me off. but alot of times it seems that they play by a different set of rules

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by dmek25

it doesnt piss me off. but alot of times it seems that they play by a different set of rules

How so? I here this a lot but I am never quite sure what it means.

[dmek25]

if you were one of Obama's nominations that didnt pay any of your taxes, what would happen to you?

[FRPLG]

Please don't answer a question with a question. It doesn't actually answer the question. And I meant the question genuinely and not in a smart-ass way. I'd really like to hear the reasons for the frustration with the rich. I don't hold them but perhaps I should and just don't know it. I'd really like to understand it more. My uninformed opinion on it is that jealously plays a huge role but upon more reasoned thought I doubt that theory a lot.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by dmek25

if you were one of Obama's nominations that didnt pay any of your taxes, what would happen to you?

I'd get the job? What, I give up?

Hmm, let me use the F Bill Gates thread logic. If I'm smart enough to evade my taxes and get away with it then I should get the job if the President nominates me. People shouldn't be so jealous of my success! I mean shit . . . . who likes paying their taxes anyway? Taxes are for the people who can't afford attorneys and accountants. If I have enough money I can buy enough influence to get the things / jobs that I want. So piss on all of the little people.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.

Isn't it mandated by law that you can't refuse them service?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by dmek25

it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America

You are totaly off. What we have now is a system that allows the lazy people to stay lazy and just get by on what the goverment provides them. The cycle is passed on to their children and then to their children. The problem they are never forced to take responsability for themself and they become dependent on the goverment for everything. What they really need is a hand up not a hand out and the dems. now have all these people dependent on the goverment so they know they have a hugh voting block as long as the Dems are there to protect their goverment programs. These programs have done nothing to help most of these people and their situation stays the same. The conservative approach is to slowly wing them off the programs and let them learn to become dependent on themself and learn some self pride in the process. I know there will always be people who need help but they also need to show a will to help themself. When the wellfair reform act was passed back in the 90's our local paper followed 10 single mothers with children who had always lived under goverment programs. It was pretty amazing how there attitude on life changed over the year they followed these ladies. Yes they had strugles but they learned to over come them and move on with life. After the year of following them I believe 7 ro 8 where living total on their own without any federal money. The biggest thing I took form keeping up with these ladies is their total attitude toward life and how much more positive they had become.

[Daseal]

I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.

Schneed -- the current health care system not only works like this, it promotes it. I am not insured. There is no way I'm going to the doctor at the first hint of being sick like I may with insurance. A simple doctor's visit for us uninsured can easily cost 250 bucks just to get in the door.

I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.

45 minutes in a hospital left me with a 9000 dollar bill. Not including the 900 dollars a week for medicine x 8 weeks.

People are petrified of getting these types of bills for a reason. Hospitals are ridiculously expensive, there's a reason why people don't come in when they're starting to feel bad. Granted it compounds the issue the longer you wait, but you have to understand that people sit down and have to weigh bankruptcy with getting fairly basic health care in this country. That is not okay, in my book.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Isn't it mandated by law that you can't refuse them service?

If they show up to the ER, that's correct. By law you have to treat them.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Schneed -- the current health care system not only works like this, it promotes it. I am not insured. There is no way I'm going to the doctor at the first hint of being sick like I may with insurance. A simple doctor's visit for us uninsured can easily cost 250 bucks just to get in the door.

I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.

45 minutes in a hospital left me with a 9000 dollar bill. Not including the 900 dollars a week for medicine x 8 weeks.

People are petrified of getting these types of bills for a reason. Hospitals are ridiculously expensive, there's a reason why people don't come in when they're starting to feel bad. Granted it compounds the issue the longer you wait, but you have to understand that people sit down and have to weigh bankruptcy with getting fairly basic health care in this country. That is not okay, in my book.

Right but the difference between you and the "poor" I'm talking about is the poor qualify for Medicaid coverage, you do not. You are simply uninsured or underinsured, which is a totally different conversation. Which you are very right about.

But, that doesn't speak to how the poor handle their healthcare. They have coverage granted to them through the state Medicaid program, so they use the ER as a "frequent flier". They know if they show up to the ER they can't be refused treatment, so they use it for every little thing. Then you have other poor folks who refuse to get treatment until they're very sick, like the pneumonia thing I mentioned. I'm saying the Medicaid programs need to be tweaked to incent the poor to use the system wisely.

As for uninsured patients who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, that's a totally different discussion. To make that fair, you're talking about a radical change to the way hospitals get reimbursed all throughout the country. Idealogically I 100% agree with your point, however knowing the business like I do, it seems like an unrealistic pipe dream.