Reply With Quote
it's called logic jack. ever heard of it moron?
Then this idiot chimes in.....
it's called logic jack. ever heard of it moron?
Bi-partisanship. Obama was the one elected promising it - if he wants to deliver the pork, he must make some sacrifices. Of course Democrats will never throw one of their most precious cons uencies and donor base under the bus, but they must start paying the political price for it.
Agreed, I forgot to add that one.I would add eliminating the healthcare benefits exemption in the tax code. You can call it a tax hike if you like, but it would certainly help make people more cost-conscious when making healthcare decisions.
Isn't that a more cost-efficient Medicaid?I would also add means-tested healthcare vouchers for those who can't afford to purchase insurance on their own. Democrats would like that, I think.
That's the elephant in the room, btw: what to do with Medicare and Medicaid.
"are you saying that tort reform would make you reject health care reform"
perhaps. I'd have to see what we'd get back in return for letting ourselves be screwed with tort reform.
The effect of tort reform is, more than discouraging frivoulous cases (which judges should do anyway), is to slam the courthouse door on some/many legit claims, because the payment caps are too low for lawyers to invest their time in hoping to get a 30% contingency payment.
90K US dead EVERY YEAR due to avoidable medical errors, but the US freaks out about explosive underwear and shoes than killed nobody.
400K dead due to (mostly) cigarette-related smoking, but taxing a pack of cigarettes into the $30 range (with the tax going to govt health insurance payouts) would have Repugs and libertarians screaming "big govt".
$200B+/year and growing due to obesity alone, but somehow penalize people for being obese, no. They have the "right" to be obese, and we love protecting their right by being suckered into the burden of paying for their self-inflicted diseases.
That's exactly the scenario that's occurring in our healthcare system today, millions and millions times over. You're the one harping that no one should be telling you what you can and can't eat, so I used you as the example. People eat whatever they want. Then they get fat because they're not eating healthy. Then they get sick because they're fat. Then the insurance company has to pay to treat them. Then the insurance company passes those medical costs along to all their members via their insurance premiums. It's one person claiming the right to eat whatever he wants and several people bearing the financial responsibility for the consequences of that decision. In other words, privatized "reward" and socialized "risk". That's why when it comes to insurance I don't think the "individual liberty" arguement is a valid one.
mogrovejo:
All I'm saying is that I would rather reform the tax code and pass Shadegg's Healthcare Reform Act. I think those are far more important than federal tort reform, which I think would be a costly victory for Republicans. (I'm not even sure what that would entail since most medical malpractice tort reform should properly be done at the state level.)
And, yes, the healthcare vouchers would be similar to Medicaid. But the purpose would be to achieve "full" coverage for those who are still priced out even after the reforms achieve lower costs. I prefer vouchers to be spent on private insurance to a government-run bureaucracy.
Tort reform is an absolute must. It is because of litigation that many profitable companies and good jobs have died here in the USA. I agree that lawsuits still need to be a recourse. Only, however, if there is a clear mistake involved. Most medical procedures have risks. As long as a doctor did his job and made no actual mistakes, then there should be no recourse for a patient. There is no way to keep costs under control without serious tort reform. Afterall, if we ever take that first step to government health plans, they will be less costly because we will have no ability to sue a government doctor.
As for companies turning down people for pre-conditions? Maybe. Like auto insurance, the price clearly needs to be based on a person's risk. Maybe we can allow a subsidy for congenital conditions, or not allow higher prices for cir stances outside an individuals control, but I will resist not making high risk people not pay more for the things they can avoid. Smokers, drug users, overweight people, etc. etc. If we truly want to bring prices down for responsible people, then it's not right to penalize them because of the irresponsible.
You shouldn't tell someone what they should eat. Please keep this real. I am not harping, I am responding to you.
I am not paying more money to eat a ing twinkie, man or drink a soda pop because some fat ass in San Antonio smokes, drinks, eats too much and never gets off his fat ass.
Does that include cases settled out of court? I doubt it. I know it doesn't cover the lost wages and revenues that have to be made up by charging other more. I know it doesn't cover all the extra procedures doctors due to keep the risk lower of being sued.
What other costs does your number not include?
What are the complete costs?
"litigation that many profitable companies and good jobs have died"
link? (and not from Cato or Heritage or AEI or Fox Nutjob Network)
nobody is telling anyone what to eat jack. if you don't want to pay taxes on junk food then don't eat junk food.
I am not for limiting damages. If there truly are damages, and a person it impacted for life, then I say damages include what ever it takes to treat the person at a minimum. If the individual requires a lifetime nanny, then a lifetime nanny is paid for, for example.
I agree with you on 1, but not 2 & 3. Still, 2 & 3 are required to get bipartisan support. Therefore, it doesn't matter if we agree or not.
And there is a major difference I think between the two camps.
I am a provider. I make good money and have no desire to be told what I can do with my life. However, if my tax dollars, or money is otherwise mandated by law, to subsidize someone elses health, then I want those being subsidized, to be required to live under strict dietary and health conditions.
Afterall, shouldn't I have a say as to how my money is being spent?
If you disagree with my conditions, then it forces me to say... Keep preexisting conditions!
But you are paying more in insurance premiums because of that fat ass and the millions of people like him.
I would be paying more if our government takes over plus I wouldn't get the service I get today.
Let the insurance companies sell out of state and prices will drop.
Lucky for you the govt is not taking over.
Democrats consider dropping insurance ban on pre-existing conditions
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/democrat...ng-conditions/
What a bunch of spineless assholes.
"Hey, American, you got a disease? "Just go the emergency room" and you!"
I'm not advocating that the government take over. I'm advocating that the government tax an unhealthy behavior and return the proceeds from that tax directly to the people to help lower their health care costs. If people cut back on the fast food they eat, they get healthier and health insurance premiums for all of us go down. If people don't change the amount of fast food they eat, we're all getting junk food tax checks to help pay for health care costs.
Well there is another elephant in the room...old people. There's alot of them and their population is growing fast....
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/us/Age_distribution
Sure the 35 year old fat ass diabetic costs money but he's going to die early. It's those those healthy ers who insist on living 30 years past retirement that are the real problem.
That's cool. I am saying there are plenty of ways to get the cost of insurance down without telling people what to eat. Taxing a big mac won't help the insurance companies. It will give more money to politicians to play with.
Which brings up another subject. Lets say I smoke. Would Blue Cross get the extra tax they charge me becuase they are my carrier?
LOL. And they got that way by not eating junk food!
It is hard not to laugh, but your observation regarding the aging of the population is correct, and that is some of the reasoning on the board behind the medicare cost issue. It will just go up phenomenally as the population ages. I think that is one of the reasons why Obama keeps saying that we can't afford NOT to reform health care. The issue always comes back to the fact that with an aging population, health care costs are gonna go through the roof.
One of the characteristics of Americans is that we don't like to be bothered about something until it is a crisis. Health care costs are awfully close to being a crisis now, but they WILL get worse.
Yep. Between payroll tax increases and benefit cuts there should be little doubt as to which side will have to carry the larger burden. The geezers outnumber the rest of us and they turn out to vote in greater percentages. They're going to vote for whoever will stick it to the youngins' and our politician s will respond accordingly.
What makes you think that is such an unheard of thing? Don't you know anyone who has lost a job due to ill health and then can't get coverage? Because I sure as do.Having a job, paying taxes is a start. It's a start for me and millions of other Americans. You Give me some scared tactic example, the sky is falling bull of some hard working American getting some bad lotto medical need and for this, you want to give everyone free healthcare. Sorry not free, you want Americans that work pay for everyone. We will take your movie of the week case or cases like that, case by case. Son, if you want Americans to pay for other Americans healthcare you should want them to help.
Taxing junk food.
Did I ever suggest univeral converage in my post? No.
Your suggestion otherwise is a classic example of the way you respond in this forum. You use reductio ad absurdam reasoning to try to discredit any position that you cannot refute. I am reminded of the admonition given me by my older brother once a long time ago, to whit,
"It is considered bad form to agree to a battle of wits with the unarmed."
Therefore, I will try to stop responding to your posts.
Last edited by EVAY; 01-25-2010 at 04:48 PM. Reason: typo
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
