Health Care Legislation: USA

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by melliedee

Yet Romneycare's mandate did just that. You know, on the state level.

Like I asked, what is the alternative since our current system is overrun with freeloaders who drive up costs for everyone?

Just who do you think these freeloaders are ???

and if you like Romneycare.. .. You should move to Mass.. thats the beauty of it ..

Maybe voters in Ohio dont want such a thing that should also be their right ..No ?

I think the concern with freeloaders is disingenious..... or the stance on illegal immigration would be just the opposite.. this freeloader claim from the left is absurd and hipocritical..


Why would the left be concerned with people taking advantage of the medical system ??

when they care nothing about the protecting our voting system.... hmmm

The (D) is home to the Freeloader...

[roni]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Just who do you think these freeloaders are ???

[roni]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

No I don't... I perfer we don't pay those taxes either...

[melliedee]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Just who do you think these freeloaders are ???

and if you like Romneycare.. .. You should move to Mass.. thats the beauty of it ..

Maybe voters in Ohio dont want such a thing that should also be their right ..No ?

I think the concern with freeloaders is disingenious..... or the stance on illegal immigration would be just the opposite.. this freeloader claim from the left is absurd and hipocritical..


Why would the left be concerned with people taking advantage of the medical system ??

when they care nothing about the protecting our voting system.... hmmm

The (D) is home to the Freeloader...

People who raise health care costs by the high risk behavior of deliberately not seeking coverage. Why should tax payers and those who do pay for coverage have their costs increase because of them?

And, why is it left v right? You still have no answer as to an alternate system that discourages freeloading. Deflect all you want. The Heritage Foundation and Romney tried to come up with a workable solution. What other ideas address this huge problem? I don't like the mandate, so I'm all ears.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

People who raise health care costs by the high risk behavior of deliberately not seeking coverage. Why should tax payers and those who do pay for coverage have their costs increase because of them?

And, why is it left v right? You still have no answer as to an alternate system that discourages freeloading. Deflect all you want. The Heritage Foundation and Romney tried to come up with a workable solution. What other ideas address this huge problem? I don't like the mandate, so I'm all ears.

I'm all ears, too, but I don't mind the mandate. We live in a society, so there are rules to follow and responsibilities to be lived up to. This is quite a reasonable one, and I don't really understand why there's much argument against the principle of the health care mandate (legal/constitutional issues being something else), given that we know that we're not going to turn away from the hospital door people without coverage who need treatment, possibly very urgently.

I know many Americans, apparently like DH, wish that we didn't live in a society where people do in fact depend on each other, and see to those needs in part through government and taxes. But that is the reality and anything else is a pipe dream.

[Dan-0]

Originally Posted by ryberg

I'm all ears, too, but I don't mind the mandate. We live in a society, so there are rules to follow and responsibilities to be lived up to. This is quite a reasonable one, and I don't really understand why there's much argument against the principle of the health care mandate (legal/constitutional issues being something else), given that we know that we're not going to turn away from the hospital door people without coverage who need treatment, possibly very urgently.

There are certain rules necessary to maintain a civil society but the mandate obliges everyone to buy a product, or enter into a contract, with a private company whether they wish to or not. That's unprecedented. I know some states have mandatory car insurance laws, but I don't like those, either. Mandatory seat belt laws paved the way for that crap. Give up one freedom and they'll come after another one every time.

Public hospitals can't turn away patients now, so why is the ACA better than the status quo?

Originally Posted by ryberg

I know many Americans, apparently like DH, wish that we didn't live in a society where people do in fact depend on each other, and see to those needs in part through government and taxes. But that is the reality and anything else is a pipe dream.

That dependence comes with a price, like anything else. There are always strings attached, nothing's free. Insurance companies are finance companies and they've artificially inflated healthcare prices. We need to deregulate the insurance companies to stimulate competition among them and also force hospitals & healthcare providers to be more competitive. But, we seemed to be at a stalemate in terms of getting any reform done so I guess that the ACA was just a patched-together compromise. I hope the mandate, at least, is ruled unconstitutional. The rest of it I could probably live with.

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

There are certain rules necessary to maintain a civil society but the mandate obliges everyone to buy a product, or enter into a contract, with a private company whether they wish to or not. That's unprecedented. I know some states have mandatory car insurance laws, but I don't like those, either. Mandatory seat belt laws paved the way for that crap. Give up one freedom and they'll come after another one every time.

Public hospitals can't turn away patients now, so why is the ACA better than the status quo?


That dependence comes with a price, like anything else. There are always strings attached, nothing's free. Insurance companies are finance companies and they've artificially inflated healthcare prices. We need to deregulate the insurance companies to stimulate competition among them and also force hospitals & healthcare providers to be more competitive. But, we seemed to be at a stalemate in terms of getting any reform done so I guess that the ACA was just a patched-together compromise. I hope the mandate, at least, is ruled unconstitutional. The rest of it I could probably live with.

They only like the constitution when they can twist it to fit their agenda.. The rest of the time its a piece of tissue for them to wipe their hiney on..


The left would willingly give up all your rights and freedoms to the federal government .. .

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by melliedee

People who raise health care costs by the high risk behavior of deliberately not seeking coverage. Why should tax payers and those who do pay for coverage have their costs increase because of them?

And, why is it left v right? You still have no answer as to an alternate system that discourages freeloading. Deflect all you want. The Heritage Foundation and Romney tried to come up with a workable solution. What other ideas address this huge problem? I don't like the mandate, so I'm all ears.

I dont buy the idea its a huge problem .. anymore than you folks buy voter fraud as a huge problem...I dont think there is enough of a problem to change it from bad to WORSE..

[roni]

You da funny man Arkie

How much did you pay in federal taxes last year?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

There are certain rules necessary to maintain a civil society but the mandate obliges everyone to buy a product, or enter into a contract, with a private company whether they wish to or not. That's unprecedented. I know some states have mandatory car insurance laws, but I don't like those, either. Mandatory seat belt laws paved the way for that crap. Give up one freedom and they'll come after another one every time.

Fearful speculation...

Originally Posted by Dan-0

Public hospitals can't turn away patients now, so why is the ACA better than the status quo?

Because under ACA, we'll have people paying for coverage instead of being freeloaders. That's the point. Neither approach turns people away, but one — ACA (with the mandate) — prevents freeloading.

Originally Posted by Dan-0

That dependence comes with a price, like anything else...

Exactly what I was saying, which is why the mandate makes sense.

[Dan-0]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Fearful speculation...

No surprise here. You can't see the problem in the government being able to mandate things like health insurance? What about when the government decides, and they will, to do away with paper currency and go to an electronic economy? Any problem there?

Originally Posted by ryberg

Because under ACA, we'll have people paying for coverage instead of being freeloaders. That's the point. Neither approach turns people away, but one — ACA (with the mandate) — prevents freeloading.

Exactly what I was saying, which is why the mandate makes sense.

How are they going to pay for it? Poor people use the ER instead of a family doctor because they don't have health insurance. Where is the money going to come from? The taxpayers that's where, just like it does now. The only difference is the insurance companies will get a piece of the pie to insure the poor (or "freeloaders" as you say) and costs will continue to go up. The only solution to controlling costs is to encourage competition between insurers and health care providers.

We are on a path that ends up with people working lower-and-lower wage jobs just to get health insurance. ACA, especially the mandate, will accelerate that.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

We are on a path that ends up with people working lower-and-lower wage jobs just to get health insurance. ACA, especially the mandate, will accelerate that.

Provide some evidence, oh great Dan-0

[D33RHUNT3R]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Fearful speculation...

Because under ACA, we'll have people paying for coverage instead of being freeloaders. That's the point. Neither approach turns people away, but one — ACA (with the mandate) — prevents freeloading.

Exactly what I was saying, which is why the mandate makes sense.

Thats BS and you know it .. the freeloaders will get waivers/A FREE PASS because they dont have jobs or will be declared to poor to have to pay just like most taxes.. 0 sum gain .. Thats is why it is nothing more than a Liberal /Socialist Power grab at FREEDOM...No Thanks...We have plenty of these kinds of SCAMS going on in Washington already we sure the hell dont need another one...


If someone wants FREE Healthcare ..Join the Military .. I just read an article they are not meeting recruiting needs.. EARN IT... or do without ..Most people dont need much before they are 50 .. its not the freeloaders... it the 18-50 that dont want to pay for something they most likely wont need.. But liberals dont like those folks to have a CHOICE... they need them to pay so they have more pandering ability and then with control of your healthcare later you are at their mercy.. sorry grandpa.. the computer says you aren't worth a hip replacement .. you know cost benefit analysts and all..We have young minds to brainwash errr educate ..

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Dan-0

We are on a path that ends up with people working lower-and-lower wage jobs just to get health insurance. ACA, especially the mandate, will accelerate that.

No, we are on a path where fewer and fewer people will be able to afford health insurance, and fewer small businesses will be able to afford to offer it to their employees.

This is the path that we must change by changing the way we deliver health care to our society.

[roni]

Originally Posted by D33RHUNT3R

Thats BS and you know it .. the freeloaders will get waivers/

You should know