Do you support UHC?

[KMFJD]

1st world country with 3rd world attitude (Survival of the fittest/wealthiest)

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Call me inhuman if you want to, but UHC is simply another tools of share of wealth stated by Obama. It basically made the higher income family forking out more money to cover for the people who made no income or are illegal immigrants. It is no different than robbing the riches at gun point beside the government don't even need a gun to rob you. Is it a right thing to do? No. Is it an ethically thing to do? No. Does it benefit the illegal immigrant? Yes. It is just like when Obama tell Chrysler's secure credit to FU and give priority to his union gang and essentially created his very own political machine, just like Daley does in Chicago.

Why would illegal immigrants be able to use a national heath system

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed; health care bill by July.

We'll see if it passes. I'm thinking this will be 93-94 all over again.

All I know is that the Democrats have a lot of votes and a lot of time on their hands (through January 2017 at minimum).

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed; health care bill by July.

We'll see if it passes. I'm thinking this will be 93-94 all over again.

All I know is that the Democrats have a lot of votes and a lot of time on their hands (through January 2017 at minimum).

You're funny. I'll grant you, the GOP doesn't seem to be the smartest bunch (by a longshot!) recently, and they've done almost nothing to suggest they should be returned to power anytime soon. ("Mustardgate"?!? Really?!?! :roll However, because almost all the voters fall for that 2-party groupthink, all the GOP has to do is wait around until the Dems screw up enough that they (the GOP) look better by comparison, and they're in like Flynn. I'll bet that happens a lot sooner than 1/17, too. It took Clinton all of two years to hand Congress back over to the GOP, so we'll see how long Obama takes to do the same. The price tag on Obama's vision is climbing like a rocket, and one of these days people are going to notice.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dphantom
No. I want to decide who and where and to what level of care I get. Not the Federal government deciding for me.

Unless you are rich and can pay out of pocket, either an insurance bureaucrat decides for you or you simply do without. Much better, eh?

I've never looked up a doc that wasn't available to me in network. So yes, much better.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: n yusef
Stop being silly.

You ask the impossible.

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Call me inhuman if you want to, but UHC is simply another tools of share of wealth stated by Obama. It basically made the higher income family forking out more money to cover for the people who made no income or are illegal immigrants. It is no different than robbing the riches at gun point beside the government don't even need a gun to rob you. Is it a right thing to do? No. Is it an ethically thing to do? No. Does it benefit the illegal immigrant? Yes..

I've got news for you--higher income families are already forking out the money for them. Hospitals are already providing health care to these people, losing money on it, money that obviously has to be made up somewhere else. The only place it can come from now is from paying customers.

 

[Xellos2099]

Right and UHC/UHI will made the problem even worse.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Right and UHC/UHI will made the problem even worse.

Care to quantify that?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RoloMather
Simple question.

It's anything but simple.

There are more versions of UHC than people can count.

Our's looks to be UHI (universal health insurance), which IMO is a huge mistake. Need to start HI reform before making everyone buy HI.

BTW: Please drop the emotional crap about poor people, they have best "UHC" available - it's called Medicaid.

Current HI is mostly just BS. It only pays for HC that you could afford to yourself. Get a major medical problem and you'll find it's not covered, or only covered to such a limited amount that you'll be bankrupt anyway.

IMO, if you really wanna see UHC, we'll have to nationalize the industry and make it a single payor system. I don't see that happening.

And for those who chime in about not being able to get coverage due to pre-existing conditions etc - that's means HI reform is needed. I'm not sure how your specific individual problem is gonna be solved under the current proposal, maybe you guys do and if so I'd appreciated it if you could explain it to.

Fern

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Atheus
Anyone saying they don't support that as a concept is surely inhuman.

Way to frame a debate.

"Do you agree with me? If you say no you're evil."

Typical shill.

You guys started it.

"Either yer with us or yer against us!"
"If you don't support President Bush, you support the terrrrists!"
"If you don't support the War in Iraq, then you should move to Iraq because you love Saddam!"

yeah, the same fucking words came out of his blabbering mouth then too.

 

[evident]

the fact today is, a person without health insurance who has a catastrophic health problem will be financially ruined for the rest of their lives to pay for the care they received. that is absolutely the most fucked up thing i've heard and it's NOT the american way.

people who don't have health insurance don't have it for a myriad of reasons, and yes, one is being a lazy fuck. but what about honest people who've had bad luck with a job and no family, or a job w/ no benefits? is it ok to lump them in with the lazy fuck crowd as well?

 

[theeedude]

I agree we need a single payer system, not universal health insurance mandate to buy insurance from private insurers. The health insurance industry needs to be shut down or limited to supplemental coverage for stuff not covered buy the universal government plan.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dphantom
No. I want to decide who and where and to what level of care I get. Not the Federal government deciding for me.

Unless you are rich and can pay out of pocket, either an insurance bureaucrat decides for you or you simply do without. Much better, eh?

I've never looked up a doc that wasn't available to me in network. So yes, much better.

I have 6 plans available to me. There's a doctor's office down the road from my house that has pediatricians and family practice. 1 of the 6 plans cover those doctors. The others require a longer drive because the doctors down the road aren't in network.

My HMO was just bought out by Humana... I'd love to switch, but I also like my doctor and my kids' doctor. So I'm stuck.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: evident
the fact today is, a person without health insurance who has a catastrophic health problem will be financially ruined for the rest of their lives to pay for the care they received. that is absolutely the most fucked up thing i've heard and it's NOT the american way.

people who don't have health insurance don't have it for a myriad of reasons, and yes, one is being a lazy fuck. but what about honest people who've had bad luck with a job and no family, or a job w/ no benefits? is it ok to lump them in with the lazy fuck crowd as well?

Re: Bolded sentence above - So will many people WITH health insurance.

Go look it up, some well known (female) journalist whose name I can't remember ATM recently did a big story on it in Time magazine (IIRC). It's what happened to her brother, he had HI and went bankrupt anyway etc.

How does a lack of HI translate into being a "lazy fuck"? If you're talking about unemplyed/poor, they have great HI. It's called Medicaid. In other words, in this country the easiest way to get the best coverage possible is become a "lazy fuck".

Fern

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: evident
the fact today is, a person without health insurance who has a catastrophic health problem will be financially ruined for the rest of their lives to pay for the care they received. that is absolutely the most fucked up thing i've heard and it's NOT the american way.

people who don't have health insurance don't have it for a myriad of reasons, and yes, one is being a lazy fuck. but what about honest people who've had bad luck with a job and no family, or a job w/ no benefits? is it ok to lump them in with the lazy fuck crowd as well?

Re: Bolded sentence above - So will many people WITH health insurance.

Go look it up, some well known (female) journalist whose name I can't remember ATM recently did a big story on it in Time magazine (IIRC). It's what happened to her brother, he had HI and went bankrupt anyway etc.

How does a lack of HI translate into being a "lazy fuck"? If you're talking about unemplyed/poor, they have great HI. It's called Medicaid. In other words, in this country the easiest way to get the best coverage possible is become a "lazy fuck".

Fern

I've heard about people who've exceeded their HI premiums and had to pay out the ass too. that makes it even worse. my "lazy fuck" sentence is a reference to the majority of R thinking, that bottom feeders will never find a job and just live off of welfare and UHC.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: evident
the fact today is, a person without health insurance who has a catastrophic health problem will be financially ruined for the rest of their lives to pay for the care they received. that is absolutely the most fucked up thing i've heard and it's NOT the american way.

people who don't have health insurance don't have it for a myriad of reasons, and yes, one is being a lazy fuck. but what about honest people who've had bad luck with a job and no family, or a job w/ no benefits? is it ok to lump them in with the lazy fuck crowd as well?

Re: Bolded sentence above - So will many people WITH health insurance.

Go look it up, some well known (female) journalist whose name I can't remember ATM recently did a big story on it in Time magazine (IIRC). It's what happened to her brother, he had HI and went bankrupt anyway etc.

How does a lack of HI translate into being a "lazy fuck"? If you're talking about unemplyed/poor, they have great HI. It's called Medicaid. In other words, in this country the easiest way to get the best coverage possible is become a "lazy fuck".

Fern

There is a large segment of the population that makes more than the maximum for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private health insurance.

 

[Pneumothorax]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Nobody is holding a gun to anyone's head - that's an American passtime. If you don't want to pay your taxes you're free to piss off somewhere else with all the other selfish assholes.

Why would illegal immigrants be able to use a national heath system?

IRS basically holds a "gun" to your head.

It's been in the past that mobsters have gone to jail, not for the murder they've committed, but the taxes they didn't pay... And you say there's no "gun" to our heads when it comes to taxes...

The illegals already get "Free" healthcare courtesy of our ER's. So they're included too. And if they're not, trust me, they eventually will be... As several court cases have ruled on the side of illegals when state governments have tried to limit "social services/handouts" to illegals.

 

[Modelworks]

Yes , as long as the government is not in control of it.
Let it be a company with fully public documents.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

nope, i think it is a privilege and not a right
taking care of ones own health is an individual responsibility and not the burden of the state or fellow taxpayer

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dphantom
No. I want to decide who and where and to what level of care I get. Not the Federal government deciding for me.

Unless you are rich and can pay out of pocket, either an insurance bureaucrat decides for you or you simply do without. Much better, eh?

I've never looked up a doc that wasn't available to me in network. So yes, much better.

I have 6 plans available to me. There's a doctor's office down the road from my house that has pediatricians and family practice. 1 of the 6 plans cover those doctors. The others require a longer drive because the doctors down the road aren't in network.

My HMO was just bought out by Humana... I'd love to switch, but I also like my doctor and my kids' doctor. So I'm stuck.

So you're okay with uhc as long as you get to choose the doc or it doesn't matter? I'm not sure how uhc would solve your problem if the guy you quoted was complaining about lack of flexibility. In my case, I'm perfectly content with nothing changing.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed; health care bill by July.

We'll see if it passes. I'm thinking this will be 93-94 all over again.

All I know is that the Democrats have a lot of votes and a lot of time on their hands (through January 2017 at minimum).

This is true but I'm not so sure as many people want it as the Dems might think. I know ATPN isn't exactly a great polling area but I'm honestly shocked by the even split in the thread poll. I thought it would be extremely in favor as opposed to bouncing around 50%.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dphantom
No. I want to decide who and where and to what level of care I get. Not the Federal government deciding for me.

Unless you are rich and can pay out of pocket, either an insurance bureaucrat decides for you or you simply do without. Much better, eh?

I've never looked up a doc that wasn't available to me in network. So yes, much better.

I have 6 plans available to me. There's a doctor's office down the road from my house that has pediatricians and family practice. 1 of the 6 plans cover those doctors. The others require a longer drive because the doctors down the road aren't in network.

My HMO was just bought out by Humana... I'd love to switch, but I also like my doctor and my kids' doctor. So I'm stuck.

So you're okay with uhc as long as you get to choose the doc or it doesn't matter? I'm not sure how uhc would solve your problem if the guy you quoted was complaining about lack of flexibility. In my case, I'm perfectly content with nothing changing.

If there was UHC, all doctors would accept it and thus I could go to whomever I want. Doctor choice is very important to me. I know that the doctor choice thing is a major anti-UHC talking point, but it doesn't seem logical that a plan that covers everyone would restrict your choice in doctors. All doctors would want in on a UHC plan as to not limit their patient pool.

As it stands now, I'm locked into a plan with customer service that's about to go down the toilet so I can stay with my doctor.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The GOP is screwed; health care bill by July.

We'll see if it passes. I'm thinking this will be 93-94 all over again.

All I know is that the Democrats have a lot of votes and a lot of time on their hands (through January 2017 at minimum).

This is true but I'm not so sure as many people want it as the Dems might think. I know ATPN isn't exactly a great polling area but I'm honestly shocked by the even split in the thread poll. I thought it would be extremely in favor as opposed to bouncing around 50%.

Public opinion polling usually shows the public in favor of UHC over our current system by 20 points or more, in quite a few cases it tops 2/3rds in favor. That's as close to a mandate as you're likely to get on an issue.

ATPN (and the internet in general) is a terrible place to get accurate data on what public opinion thinks. This site is mostly comprised of socially liberal/fiscally conservative people, which is probably the single smallest constituency of any political ideological combination in the United States today.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: RoloMather
Do you support UHC?

Hell no.

Increased regulation and reform of private healthcare? sure!

 

[quest55720]

I support reforms to the system to get costs down so more people can get insurance. To really get costs down it will start at home with people leading healthier life styles. This government does not have the money for UHC they are going to have to borrow 50 cents for every dollar spent next year or 1.8 freaking dollar deficit.