Thread: Health Care Reform; States suing as unconstitutional

Originally Posted by BAMARACING8

people need to quit wanting a government handout and get outside and go do work

as long as handouts are available, they will be taken. And people who promise more of them seem to have good success gathering votes. in a nutshell I think that's how it works because once you offer a handout, it's tough to take it away

I'm against gov. handouts for people unwilling to pull their weight. I've voted Republican all my life, but what about the fact that an increasing number of working Americans - not lazy bums - can no longer afford their health insurance premiums - or that their employers can no longer afford to offer health plans? What about the fact that we spend far more than any other country on healthcare, but our "health" is no better? How do we fix the system before it collapses? Don't just tell me "the government can't/shouln't be involved". What does the answer involve? How do you see it happening?

Jordan

Originally Posted by jnich67

I'm against gov. handouts for people unwilling to pull their weight. I've voted Republican all my life, but what about the fact that an increasing number of working Americans - not lazy bums - can no longer afford their health insurance premiums - or that their employers can no longer afford to offer health plans? What about the fact that we spend far more than any other country on healthcare, but our "health" is no better? How do we fix the system before it collapses? Don't just tell me "the government can't/shouln't be involved". What does the answer involve? How do you see it happening?

Jordan

I highlighted the above because I always read this: "We spend all of this money, but our health is no better." Better than what?? What do you expect? Eternal life? We already live twice as long as our ancestors in the 19th century. What do you want to do - live three times as long? Have you spent much time with the elderly? Any 90 yrs +?
Hell, if I live to be so old that my balls are hanging down to my knees and I'm pi$$ing into a diaper, I'll be happy when death comes!

Originally Posted by honedright

I highlighted the above because I always read this: "We spend all of this money, but our health is no better." Better than what?? What do you expect? Eternal life? We already live twice as long as our ancestors in the 19th century. What do you want to do - live three times as long? Have you spent much time with the elderly? Any 90 yrs +?
Hell, if I live to be so old that my balls are hanging down to my knees and I'm pi$$ing into a diaper, I'll be happy when death comes!

You touch on my personal issue with the reform. I have historically declined health insurance from my employers and, now that I am freelance, do not purchase it for myself. I do this purely on moral grounds. If moral is the right term. While I respect the advances medical science has made in the last century and do not begrudge any the decision to take advantage of such I do not wish to have my life drastically altered by it. We are supposed to die and I accept that every day when I leave my house on my bicycle to ride with traffic that I might not be coming home, doubly so due to my personal beliefs. But now, I will be required to either pay extra taxes or carry a policy that I do not ever intend to use.

While I understand that my feelings at the age of 30 might change if/when I have children and that there are issues with medical response being taken in an emergency when I am unable to express my desires I still make the decision to accept those situations and deal with them if and when they arise.

But I think that the topic is drifting from the OP. In regards to that I think that we are in the beginnings of a long battle that could (not that I suspect it will) alter the way this Country works.

Originally Posted by Muirtach

You touch on my personal issue with the reform. I have historically declined health insurance from my employers and, now that I am freelance, do not purchase it for myself. I do this purely on moral grounds. If moral is the right term. While I respect the advances medical science has made in the last century and do not begrudge any the decision to take advantage of such I do not wish to have my life drastically altered by it. We are supposed to die and I accept that every day when I leave my house on my bicycle to ride with traffic that I might not be coming home, doubly so due to my personal beliefs. But now, I will be required to either pay extra taxes or carry a policy that I do not ever intend to use.

While I understand that my feelings at the age of 30 might change if/when I have children and that there are issues with medical response being taken in an emergency when I am unable to express my desires I still make the decision to accept those situations and deal with them if and when they arise.

What would you do if you got bumped off your bicycle and broke your arms? Then what would you do if somebody saw your accident and called you an ambulance?

Well, he probably wouldn't be signing any forms for the Para-Medics

Originally Posted by hardblues

Well, he probably wouldn't be signing any forms for the Para-Medics

Oooohhh no offense to anyone REALLY but

Originally Posted by commiecat

What would you do if you got bumped off your bicycle and broke your arms? Then what would you do if somebody saw your accident and called you an ambulance?

Call Doc Baker and see if he'll take my Williams custom in return for wrapping some splints around my arms!...

Sorry, I couldn't resist...

Jordan

Originally Posted by commiecat

What would you do if you got bumped off your bicycle and broke your arms? Then what would you do if somebody saw your accident and called you an ambulance?

It would depend on the situation. Were I the one at fault I would apologize for the collision and be on my way to deal with it as I see fit on my own. This is not conjecture as I only have partial mobility of my right wrist due to doing just this 2.5 years ago and I stand by my decision. Were I not the person at fault I am honestly not certain how I would proceed. There are a number of factors to be taken into account besides the simple medical aspect. Mainly the security of mind for the other parties involved.

Good responses, all. I don't have a problem with the topic meandering a bit off course as long as it doesn't turn into a slug fest over political ideology, etc and of course, remains civil.

Honedright: your idea is an interesting one. I rather like it (paying off a bill manually if possible). The only concern I would have with that is the potential for healthcare costs to continue to rise on a seemingly exponential basis. It would be one thing for me to work part time at a hospital paying off a debt of say $10,000 for some relatively routine surgery such as gallbladder removal, but it would be another if that same surgery ended up costing a disparate $100,000 for for no "good" reason. Or, to take it to an absurd degree, but to illustrate my point, the same surgery costing $500,000.

Hospitals would own transplant patients cancer patients, etc. for life.

There is no single finger that can be pointed at a single problem which has caused healthcare and healthcare coverage in the U.S. to reel out of control. A huge factor that no one talks about but I remember when it changed (mid 1990s), lifting the ban on drug companies advertising drugs. That has caused a HUGE spike in healthcare costs. Did you ever think you'd see the day of what is not routine when drug companies tell people to ask their doctors if a drug such as Cost-ton-a will help them when the advertising doesn't even tell you what Cost-ton-a does or is supposed to do?

"Mr. Car Salesman; I heard on TV that I was supposed to ask you about Bently or Lotus. Are they right for me?"

Ok ok, off topic, I know; I take a bit of liberty since I started the post.

Chris L