the new health care?

[Trample the Elderly]

OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national health care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

OK, if you can't stomach the Democrats but you still want to be a moderate, please stop voting in the Republican Primaries. None of the Conservatives ever get a chance because you guys want guys like Giuliani and McCain "Mister Moderate Maverick" to be President. Now we have a broke Medicaid system, a SS system that's going broke sooner than expected, and now national helath care. Why be half-assed Democrats when you can go vote for one.

You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off gay people can find a church and get married everyday its just not recognized by the goverment. If they love each other so much why don't they just get married and move on with life?

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government?

Acknowledgement of a married relationship brings certain legal and tax status. I agree with your point though, the federal government should not be focused on legislating moral behavior unless there is a negative effect on others. There also shouldn't be an effect on how you're taxed whether single or married either (insert FairTax plug here).

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Acknowledgement of a married relationship brings certain legal and tax status. I agree with your point though, the federal government should not be focused on legislating moral behavior unless there is a negative effect on others. There also shouldn't be an effect on how you're taxed whether single or married either (insert FairTax plug here).

I edited mine to add some stuff...but the the legal and tax stuff exists BECAUSE of the sanctioning. Not the other way around. We didn't decide to give out benefits and then come up with the magic idea of marriage as a way to make it happen. Marriage is a religious invention that the gov't/society decided to use as a tool for providing benefits.

It should remain strickly a religious institution and we should forego providing benefits/status based on marriage since it intrinsically can't be done in a fair way.

[SmootSmack]

JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Sorta my point. Why does the government have to care either? Gays care because the gov't provides benefits to married people for some reason. What logical explanation exists for an arbitrary relationship to be sanctioned by the government so that those people can get benefits? It seems petty crappy to me that there are churches that will marry gay people but the gov't don't afford them the same legal sanction that we afford "normal" married people. That doesn't even remotely make sense or seem fair. The easiest way to fix it is to have the gov't not even care about married people from a legal standpoint.

So I'm with you and now we will have to privatize social security and I'm all for that. Other than maybe a tax break SS is the only thing I can think of as far as goverment benefits. Most of the other stuff you can go to a lawyer and draw up legal papers that give you the other rights like when medical issues arise.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

JoeRedskin started a good thread that we should move this whole discussion to, let's keep this on health care (or at least try to get it back there)

In an attempt to do so, I am still waiting for dmek's response to this exchange:

Originally Posted by dmek25

Joe, i never said Obama's plan is the right one. or even that its going to work. but the system, the way its set up now, doesn't work. it needs fixed. im willing to suffer thru some setbacks, until it gets righted. i already know alot of people aren't

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, what is the right plan? Before we going tearing up an imperfect system that provides coverage for 80% of the population, shouldn't we have an idea of what's coming? You want me to suffer through setbacks? I am perfectly fine with sacrifice if you can point me to something that will ultimately lead to a better system.

This self-righteous "you're just afraid of change" bs is just that. Fiscal conservatives are perfectly willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gains. Their just isn't a plan out there that can w/stand any sort of scrutiny and fit that description.

You, like me, don't have a plan. Unlike you, however, I recognize that "change" for change's sake could lead to something even worse than the current system.

So I will ask again: What's your plan dmek ?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

You're being an idiot.

Sorry but it's the truth. A Fiscal Conservative is farther from a Democrat than you. Someone who wants to use the government to legislate about people's lives is no better than a liberal socialist. Plain and simple. The Republican party is rooted in small government and fiscal conservatism. Not in growing the government/increasing government intrusion by legislating how people live. I consider myself very far from moderate when it comes to the things I think are actually important for us to be concerned with on a political level. It only proves my point that the two-party size fits all is tragically flawed. You care about things I don't care about. Why should we have to vote together just because we probably agree on one sector of issues? There isn't only 2 ways to look at things but we only to get to vote for candidates representing 2 ways of thinking. We're never even presented any of the other options.

And what are those?

[Beemnseven]

Okay, people have been asking "what exactly should we do?" regarding a new health care plan. Here are some ideas, again from Rep. Ron Paul, who is a doctor and knows first-hand of the trouble with the current system.

I'm not sure if these bills are still active, but the idea of allowing individuals and families to deduct the cost of health care off their income taxes has been an idea floating around for awhile. Sounds like a good idea to me.

HR 3075 provides truly comprehensive health care reform by allowing families to claim a tax credit for the rising cost of health insurance premiums. With many families now spending close to $1000 or even more for their monthly premiums, they need real tax relief-- including a dollar-for-dollar credit for every cent they spend on health care premiums-- to make medical care more affordable.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

HR 3077 makes it more affordable for parents to provide health care for their children. It creates a $500 per child tax credit for medical expenses and prescription drugs that are not reimbursed by insurance. It also creates a $3,000 tax credit for dependent children with terminal illnesses, cancer, or disabilities. Parents who are struggling to pay for their children's medical care, especially when those children have serious health problems or special needs, need every extra dollar.

HR 3078 is commonsense, compassionate legislation for those suffering from cancer or other terminal illnesses. The sad reality is that many patients battling serious illnesses will never collect Social Security benefits-- yet they continue to pay into the Social Security system. When facing a medical crisis, those patients need every extra dollar to pay for medical care, travel, and family matters. HR 3078 waives the employee portion of Social Security payroll taxes (or self-employment taxes) for individuals with documented serious illnesses or cancer. It also suspends Social Security taxes for primary caregivers with a sick spouse or child. There is no justification or excuse for collecting Social Security taxes from sick individuals who literally are fighting for their lives.

The bottom line is that health care costs seemed to get really out of control once the people stopped paying for the cost of a doctor visit up front, directly. Then the federal government started requiring employers to provide health care, and suddenly all the money was put into a huge pot with lots of people paying in and third parties began allocating those funds as they saw fit -- with doctors basically out of the decision making.

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).

[dmek25]

Joe, i long or the day that any American that is sick, or needs medical attention, can visit the doctor, and be helped. not worrying about co pays, referrals, or if the have enough money to meet their deductibles. it shouldn't matter if your rich, or poor. i know im living a pipe dream. but i see dozens at work every day, that are of retirement age, that are afraid to go, because they are worried about paying for their health care. in my book, its just not fair. to answer you, i don't know the answer. and sorry it took so long to reply. im working 3-11 this week

[dmek25]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Today, the system is designed so that nobody could afford to pay for health care themselves. Get the insurance companies out, except for major, castostrophic illnesses or injuries, and let the free market dictate the price between the service provider (the doctor) and the customer (the patient).

i would be willing to give this a try. there is no way any insurance company should have the right to tell someone what they can, and cannot do

[tryfuhl]

Anything that saves us from the corruption of insurance companies I'm willing to listen to.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I have fully explained why I believe the quality of my health care will diminish in the "New Health Care Thread". http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lo...th-care-7.html

Does your 85% include those who choose to be uninsured even if financially able but unwilling to pay (and, as "financially able" as those who are able because they chose to pay for insurance as opposed to the mortgage - I am referring to the significant portion of young healthy, productive adults who choose not to purchase health insurance)? Does it include only those currently not on medicaid? Must it increase benefits for those on medicaid or will it simply be enough to expand the benefits provided medicaid to cover those not currently covered?

I mean we can go around on this all day, there have been at least three threads and pages and pages of posts discussing all these issues and more without any general consensus being reached. It's a knotty problem and one that shouldn't be rammed through in a 1000 page bill on one month review.

I believe we should collectively pay for it just like we pay for defense. Some of us more so than others (progressive tax). If you want to make the argument that young adults should have a choice in whether they want participate or not I can also make similar argument with respect to whether or not I want to contribute to defense spending. This matter should not be open to choice IMO because man is inherently selfish and will always do what is best for him. Also, when this young man doesn't have 30K for a broken foot surgery who will pay for it?

You're right, this bill should take more than 30 days but our politics is so adversarial that one must get their punches in before the round is over. If anyone truly believed Republicans would be interested in exploring the possibility of a universal heathcare solution I truly believe they would have taken their time. The Republican and lobbyist game is delay, and the Democrats game is get it passed ASAP. Personally, I would have commissioned a one year study whose goal is to do full analysis on how to best implement universal healthcare and put out a plain english and public proposal.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by tryfuhl

Anything that saves us from the corruption of insurance companies I'm willing to listen to.

Welcome to those that perfected corruption........the Fed.
I am not sure, but it might be interesting to consult the American Indian for their opinion on the ability of the Federal Government to implement and administrate an effective health care program?