Obama: It's OK to borrow to pay for health care

[billvon 3,070]

>I skydive and consider it my responsibility to keep paying for my own
>heath care coverage because of the risk, should I be forced to cover
>additional costs for those who do not have that level of responsibility?

Should you be?

If you are OK with seeing someone break their pelvis in the landing area, and then lie there for a few days until they die of exposure, then no, there is no reason you should be charged anything at all.

If you are not OK with that, then it is not reasonable to ask other people to pay for what you want covered.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Quote

Is social security working 'perfectly' no. of course not. Is it working? Yes.

Do you really believe that Social Security is "working"?

If it were working, it would be earning a positive return on the largest investment fund ever created in human history. Or at least it would still have some of it's initial capital left.

Social Security makes Bernie Madoff look like a kid stealing candy from a grocery store.

now that is damn naive ... social security would be fat and happy with no problem at all ... if the government hadn't tapped every cent of it every year for 'bridges to nowhere' ... social security isn't the problem ... it's the swine who raped it repeatedly and you Americans keep electing them over and over because they are 'for family values' (when not busy with the mistress) or 'the proper man to be hard on terrorists' (he couldn't bother completing his National Guard tour to keep his ass out of Nam but he's the man to be tough ??? lmao )

and I say 'you Americans' because I am a Canuck but I have a dog in this race because I have pored a shitload into Social Security since 1982, since so don't go all jingoistic on me.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

now that is damn naive ... social security would be fat and happy with no problem at all ... if the government hadn't tapped every cent of it every year for 'bridges to nowhere' ... social security isn't the problem ...

Translation: this government program would be great if it weren't for the government.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[billvon 3,070]

>Translation: this government program would be great if it weren't for the
>government.

Pretty much true of everything. Medical insurance would be great if not for insurance companies. Heck, Enron was great while it lasted; only problem turned out to be Enron.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Quote

now that is damn naive ... social security would be fat and happy with no problem at all ... if the government hadn't tapped every cent of it every year for 'bridges to nowhere' ... social security isn't the problem ...

Translation: this government program would be great if it weren't for the government.

I notice you doing the same thing as talk radio... say 'this is what that meant' (even thought it's not) at least you didn't repost that 100 times, proving this is not talk radio.

the 'Government program' is NOT the the government (the yahoos you people keep electing)

there very much is a difference..

[lawrocket 3]

The yahoos we are electing ARE the government. And you want these same yahoos to come up with a plan for health care.

"Let's give Bobby the car keys. He's wrecked every car he's had before, but he knows how important this car is. What? No. Bobby wouldn't raid the liquor cabinet, either. Especially not before driving. Yes, I know he's a habitual drunk driver. But he's serious this time."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

>Translation: this government program would be great if it weren't for the
>government.

Pretty much true of everything. Medical insurance would be great if not for insurance companies. Heck, Enron was great while it lasted; only problem turned out to be Enron.

ENRON was not a problem at all... i loath non-productive 'middlemen' organizations (sort of like Skyride) but the business was not particulary the problem... the problem was the leaders of that business illegally hiding debts and generally screwing up with NO accountability

Communism is a flawed idea because for it to operate correctly you need perfect people in charge ... and we know that ain't gonna happen

Unregulated Free Market capitalism is a flawed system because you need perfect people in charge .. and we have seen that not happening ... regulation is imposed because corporations have been allowed to become so BIG that no one can afford the failure when 'unregulated' Titans of industry screw the pooch ..

back to Medical Insurance .. I read (somewhere back when) in the Arizona Republic (that radical leftist tabloid) an article that an interview with a Hospital company executive (who refused to be named) ... stating that, the base costs for care were inflated X4 because insurance companies insisted on only paying 1/3 of the base costs...

so you, you uninsured twat, are being charged 4 times what they really want to chargeyou because YOU don't happen to work for a company that provides insurance and YOU can't afford 300+ dollars (more if you have a family) per month for private insurance

yeah, Free Enterprise.... what a lovely idea ...
where is the competition ??? why does your computer cost 3-500 dollars less every year but health care goes up ????

competition is a myth .... and where there is no competition there is no free enterprise ... so nationalize it and be done with it ...

[Lefty 0]

Quote

I notice you doing the same thing as talk radio... say 'this is what that meant' (even thought it's not) at least you didn't repost that 100 times, proving this is not talk radio.

Fine, I'll rephrase so as not to offend your sensitivities to the talking box. "Social security would be fat and happy with no problem at all, if the government hadn't tapped every cent of it." Now, where did I hear that?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

The yahoos we are electing ARE the government. And you want these same yahoos to come up with a plan for health care.

"Let's give Bobby the car keys. He's wrecked every car he's had before, but he knows how important this car is. What? No. Bobby wouldn't raid the liquor cabinet, either. Especially not before driving. Yes, I know he's a habitual drunk driver. But he's serious this time."

not necessarily, I want you to elect NEW yahoos ...

and their job isn't to run the health care system, it's to come up with the money to pay for it (and I don't mean select an insurance company, I mean get rid of the bloodsucking middleman)

try the Canadian system, is there a committee that decides in what order people get care ? of course, just like EVERY one of your insurance companies (all 13,000 -- number from Arizona Republic so is suspect, they are such radicals)

now, what consists of the typical provincial committee in Canada... 4 doctors (volunteers, although probably paid for time) and 2 government representatives ... Gee guess who has the majority

now your typical Insurance company ... guess who makes up their committee ??

I know, we'll soon here, Canada, some posted that system is now screwed.... sorry, but ALL my relatives are up there and are perfectly happy with the health care they get .... one uncle, at 82 needed a bypass, (also tended to imbibing way to much beer during lifetime) ... they just said, well, you don't take care of yourself, and you don't deserve it, but you'll die if we don't do it... so they did, quickly and efficiently and he is back to having his beer ...

so we tax more to get health care ... big whup... jam the rich, they got money because the tax code favors them (they paid for that, which is why it's unlikel;y we'll see that change)

go after the rich !!! target 1 segnment of society

get over it people, the Income Tax was brought in to ONLY tax the rich who could afford it ... it was never meant to be universal (yes, in America, that's how it started) ... years and years went by and now everybody pays ... because the number didn't change and inflation folded everyone into the net ...

just like the Alternate Minimum Tax which was invented because someone realized a lot of the very rich paid 0 taxes because of all the nifty laws they paid congressmen to enact (deductions and credits)
... this was supposed to ensure the VERY rich paid some damn thing....
unfortunately, the number was not indexed and now a lot of people who should not pay for it are ...

tax them tax them I say

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Communism is a flawed idea because for it to operate correctly you need perfect people in charge ... and we know that ain't gonna happen

Communism is a bad idea because there's no incentive or rewards for success.

Quote

Unregulated Free Market capitalism is a flawed system because you need perfect people in charge .. and we have seen that not happening ... regulation is imposed because corporations have been allowed to become so BIG that no one can afford the failure when 'unregulated' Titans of industry screw the pooch ..

Totally disagree. A true free market economy with 0 government intervention or regulation would sort itself out. People would vote with their wallets.

Once you do have gov't involvement, it all changes. Government likes big companies because it's less for them to keep track of. So they give them breaks, special funding etc. which they use to grow larger.

Theses "Titan" that have been allowed to get to the size where letting them collapse under their own incompetence and stupidity will destabilize the economy and they know this.

So what do they do? They make even more risky and stupid short term decisions to maximize profits today knowing that when the shit hits the fan tomorrow because of it they just ask Uncle Sam for more $$$.

In a way it's sorta a form of reverse communism as there is no real penalty or loss from bad decisions.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Quote

...Unregulated Free Market capitalism is a flawed system because you need perfect people in charge .. and we have seen that not happening ... regulation is imposed because corporations have been allowed to become so BIG that no one can afford the failure when 'unregulated' Titans of industry screw the pooch ..

Totally disagree. A true free market economy with 0 government intervention or regulation would sort itself out. People would vote with their wallets.

of course if their wallet is EMPTY due to unregulated yahoos (and you can have a Wharton MBA and be a yahoo... i've met them) then your vote means nothing

Quote

.....
Once you do have gov't involvement, it all changes. Government likes big companies because it's less for them to keep track of. So they give them breaks, special funding etc. which they use to grow larger.

Theses "Titan" that have been allowed to get to the size where letting them collapse under their own incompetence and stupidity will destabilize the economy and they know this.
..........

and regulation and anti-trust was supposed to prevent EXACTLY that ... of course 8 years of 'anti-trust? regulation? what's that ?' from an administration that just didn't care as long as Haliburton and KBR did ok
pretty much ended all that ....

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones?

Would that be the iPhone that costs (at a minimum - 8Gb refurb) $79, and requires a minimum of $70 in phone and data service (messaging extra)?

$70 is pretty low. When I had mine I was paying nearly $110/mo with one of the smaller voice plans.

And this is the thing that pisses me off about the issue more than anything else - when people 'can't afford' health care, but seem to be able to pay for fancy cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

I wonder how many people really mean "choose not to pay for" when they say that they "cannot afford" health care.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Quote

Of those millions talked about who "can't afford coverage" how many have a Nintendo sitting under the HD TV? How many have a $40,000 car on the drive way? How many eat out 5 times a week?

Quote

Wanna know about the pregnant patients on medicaid with iPhones?

$70 is pretty low. When I had mine I was paying nearly $110/mo with one of the smaller voice plans.

And this is the thing that pisses me off about the issue more than anything else - when people 'can't afford' health care, but seem to be able to pay for fancy cell phones and flat-screen TVs.

I wonder how many people really mean "choose not to pay for" when they say that they "cannot afford" health care.

I am betting of the 'millions' not that many have HDTVs and IPhones. There are always abusers and you talk radio parrots always harp on them.
What ? 3 people abused this ? then cut off those 343,284 people. I'm not putting up with that !'

I have supported an ex for several years (even though under no obligation to) because if I didn't my son would and I wanted him to try and get an education ...
I don't have HDTV
I don't have a flatscreen TV
I don't have and Iphone
I have a 13 year old car ... and she has even less ... we finally talked her into applying for state mediacal care (like I could afford insurance for anyone, including ME) because she had
NO INCOME
NO assets
NO way to make a living
because her knee was shredded... the injury dated back 25 years ... you've heard of Cruciate ligament tears taking out football players... she snapped hers and snapped tendons ...(this was on a parachute landing but she had set up the mess skiing for years) .. way back then they had to drill holes thru her knee and thread cut off hamstrings thru to build her a knee ..

later she became a flying instructor and an aerobics instructor and after that a certificated personal trainer all on a shoddy knee and none of these careers provided any kind of health care... finally she could hardly walk and needed a knee replacement (the doc later said it tied with the WORST knee he had ever seen, she could barely walk)
she spent YEARS in pain until her financial situation was bad enough to let her qualify for state care.....

and she doesn't have any of that nice crap, you bonehead, and neither does almost anyone else that uses that avenue , sure, some abuse... but the effort should be catch the abusers... not condemn the whole thing ....

in Canada, she would simply have got her knee fixed

this is a great country, but make no mistake about, to a lot of the world, there are things about America that are just an insane joke...

[Lefty 0]

Ok, just so I understand:

Your ex engaged in very risky activities like skiing and skydiving without ample medical coverage. She then decided to pursue careers that probably weren't good for her bad knee (aerobics instructor, personal trainer). These careers provided no health care, but she didn't purchase any for herself with the money she undoubtedly saved from these jobs. It then fell on taxpayers, many of whom would not let themselves get into a dire situation like this, to pay for her knee replacement. You think the taxpayer should have intervened and paid for surgery before the injury was neglected for 25 years.

Is that correct? At any point did an insurance provider try to screw her over or deny her coverage for the injury?

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I am betting of the 'millions' not that many have HDTVs and IPhones.

And I'm betting that millions of them do.

Quote

There are always abusers and you talk radio parrots always harp on them.
What ? 3 people abused this ? then cut off those 343,284 people. I'm not putting up with that !'

Cut off what? I'm not trying stop anyone from getting healthcare - I just don't want the government taking even more money from me to do it. I pay for my own healthcare - why should I be forced to bear the responsibilities of others?

Quote

I have supported an ex for several years (even though under no obligation to) because if I didn't my son would and I wanted him to try and get an education ...
I don't have HDTV
I don't have a flatscreen TV
I don't have and Iphone
I have a 13 year old car ... and she has even less ... we finally talked her into applying for state mediacal care (like I could afford insurance for anyone, including ME) because she had
NO INCOME
NO assets
NO way to make a living
because her knee was shredded... the injury dated back 25 years ... you've heard of Cruciate ligament tears taking out football players... she snapped hers and snapped tendons ...(this was on a parachute landing but she had set up the mess skiing for years) .. way back then they had to drill holes thru her knee and thread cut off hamstrings thru to build her a knee ..

I'm not trying to make this about you at all, and I'll agree that the situation is unfortunate. I still don't understand why you think the people that do pay for health insurance should be made to bear the cost of those that don't.

Quote

later she became a flying instructor and an aerobics instructor and after that a certificated personal trainer all on a shoddy knee and none of these careers provided any kind of health care...

Did they provide money? I think most doctors offices will take that.

Quote

and she doesn't have any of that nice crap, you bonehead, and neither does almost anyone else that uses that avenue , sure, some abuse... but the effort should be catch the abusers... not condemn the whole thing ....

bonehead? grow up.

And you have no idea how many people abuse the system, but I'm betting it's much, much higher than you imagine.

And I'm condeming the whole thing because it's not an improvement on the current system, it's not a fix for anything, it's just throwing money at the problem. It'd be a system that not only allows for abuse, but doesn't provide any real incentive not to abuse it.

Quote

this is a great country, but make no mistake about, to a lot of the world, there are things about America that are just an insane joke...

Like what? Being able to keep the fruits of one's effort and hard work? It's beginning to seem like a joke here.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Should you be?

If you are OK with seeing someone break their pelvis in the landing area, and then lie there for a few days until they die of exposure, then no, there is no reason you should be charged anything at all.

If you are not OK with that, then it is not reasonable to ask other people to pay for what you want covered.

Except, the issue isn't being asked to pay for health case it's being forced to.

Just because I wouldn't want someone dying after such an injury doesn't mean I think it'd be OK to pull out a gun and demand money from people for it.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

........
And I'm condeming the whole thing because it's not an improvement on the current system, it's not a fix for anything, it's just throwing money at the problem. It'd be a system that not only allows for abuse, but doesn't provide any real incentive not to abuse it.
.....

please, please enlighten me on how you can abuse a system where
A. you are ill
B. you go to a doctor
C. he helps you

and you pay nothing, beyond the taxes you pay anyway ???

I can't wait to hear how this abuse is going to happen ...

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I can't wait to hear how this abuse is going to happen ...

"Phantom Billing" - Billing for tests not performed.

Performing inappropriate or unnecessary procedures.

Charging for equipment/supplies never ordered.

Billing Medicare/Medicaid for new equipment but providing the patient used equipment.

Billing Medicare/Medicaid for expensive equipment but providing the patient cheap equipment.

A drug or equipment supplier completing a Certificate of Medical Necessity (CMN) instead of the physician.

"Reflex testing" - Automatically running a test whenever the results of some other test fall within a certain range, even though the reflex test was not requested by a physician.

"Defective Testing" - When a test or part of a test was not performed because of technical trouble (ie: insufficient or destroyed sample, machine malfunction) but is billed for anyway.

"Code Jamming" - Laboratories inserting or "jamming" fake diagnosis codes to get Medicare/Medicaid coverage.

Offering free services or supplies in exchange for your Medicare or Medicaid number.

"Unbundling" - Using two or more Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") billing codes instead of one inclusive code for a defined panel where rules and regulations require "bundling" of such claims. Submitting multiple bills, in order to obtain a higher reimbursement for tests and services that were performed within a specified time period and which should have been submitted as a single bill.

"Double Billing" — charging more than once for the same service, for example by billing using an individual code and again as part of an automated or bundled set of tests.

"Up Coding" - Inflating bills by using diagnosis billing codes that indicate the patient experienced medical complications and/or needed more expensive treatments. (eg., billing for complex services when only simple services were performed, billing for brand-named drugs when generic drugs were provided, listing treatment as having been for a more complicated diagnosis than was actually the case.)

"Phantom Employees" - Expensing employees or hours worked that do not exist.

"Improper Cost Reports" — Submitting false cost reports seeking higher Medicare reimbursements than permitted by actual facts.

Providing substandard nursing home care and seeking Medicare reimbursement.

Routinely waiving patient co-payments.

------------------------------------------------

Current estimates that medicare fraud alone costs the US $60 billion annually.

Do you think spending more money on a program like this will decrease fraud?

[crustySCSA69 0]

I see, because these medical professionals can't be trusted and will inevitably screw the system ... we should not have health care..

but business professionals (who by the way, have not spent years learning how to save lives) can be trusted and by your own argument don't need regulation, because they ar4e not really a problem ..

is your name Madoff ?

you go on and on about MY money should not be wasted on frivolous crap like health care for someone less fortunate that you and at the same time protest that free markets (haliburton, KBR) and no regulation (ENRON, Madoff) are the way to go ??

the big boys steal BILLIONS and you worry that some schlemp is going to overbill a little ?? I already said regulate the crap out of this stuff ...

they have you wound right there pal, right where they want, spouting the same nonsense..

[justinb138 0]

Quote

I see, because these medical professionals can't be trusted and will inevitably screw the system ... we should not have health care..

I'm done with trying to have a rational discussion if you're going to try to put words in my mouth.

Quote

but business professionals (who by the way, have not spent years learning how to save lives) can be trusted and by your own argument don't need regulation, because they ar4e not really a problem ..

I never said I did trust them, I just said I didn't trust the government either. I never said they don't need regulation, I just questioned who was doing the regulating.

Quote

is your name Madoff ?

Seriously, grow up.

Quote

you go on and on about MY money should not be wasted on frivolous crap like health care for someone less fortunate that you and at the same time protest that free markets (haliburton, KBR) and no regulation (ENRON, Madoff) are the way to go ??

I never said it was wasted, frivolous, or crap. And less fortunate? I'm not able to make a living because I'm forunate, I make a living because I work for it.

And free markets are the way to go. Everyone that invested in Enron, Madoff, did so by their own choice. These companies were a problem; the market corrected the problem and they're no longer in business.

I've tried to have a rational discussion about this with you, but you seem to be resorting to putting words in my mouth and out right insults at some point, instead of giving a rational response. Why is that?

[diablopilot 2]

Weak retort.

Personally imposed moral obligation and government mandated fiscal obligation are not one in the same.

So should I be financially obligated to take care of a person who knowingly participated in a high risk activity AND knowingly accepted the responsibility of those actions (remember the waiver?) simply because they didn't take on the personal responsibility of planning for the possibility of an accident?

You want me to pay for health insurance for someone else. Great. Can I get them a latte' as well?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

...

Quote

but business professionals (who by the way, have not spent years learning how to save lives) can be trusted and by your own argument don't need regulation, because they ar4e not really a problem ..

I never said I did trust them, I just said I didn't trust the government either. I never said they don't need regulation, I just questioned who was doing the regulating.

By your own statements you advocated an unregulated free market ... and if the gov doesn't regulate them ... who the hell will ??
same old double talk ...

Quote

And free markets are the way to go. Everyone that invested in Enron, Madoff, did so by their own choice. These companies were a problem; the market corrected the problem and they're no longer in business.

tell that to the employees (who thought they were working for a reputable company) and the retirees who had their life savings wiped out because
A. ENRON management told them everything was fine
B. ENRON management made sure they couldn't cash out of their stock plans for the 2 weeks it all took to tank...
I'm sure they are overjoyed that the 'market' corrected the problem ... but that doesn't bother you does it .... because after all 'I got mine Jack'.

Quote

I've tried to have a rational discussion about this with you, but you seem to be resorting to putting words in my mouth and out right insults at some point, instead of giving a rational response. Why is that?

typical AM radio maneuver ... 'I didn't say that, you're irrational'

I happily stand by everything I've said here and NONE of it is irrational, and I don't have to put words in your mouth, the contradictions flow effortlessly ...

[crustySCSA69 0]

Quote

Weak retort.

Personally imposed moral obligation and government mandated fiscal obligation are not one in the same.

So should I be financially obligated to take care of a person who knowingly participated in a high risk activity AND knowingly accepted the responsibility of those actions (remember the waiver?) simply because they didn't take on the personal responsibility of planning for the possibility of an accident?

You want me to pay for health insurance for someone else. Great. Can I get them a latte' as well?

so if we see YOU screw yourself into the ground we should just throw a cell phone onto YOUR carcass and say ' hey, call your insurance company, I'm sure you planned all this out' and walk away ?

according to you we have NO responsibility at all and can happily watch you croak while we sip the latte's we pay for.

oh, you didn't mean that extreme ?? then what exactly did you mean ?

the whole point of National health care is NO one cares how you got ill, or injured or anything... you just get fixed ...

I can't believe any skydiver wouldn't support that because I KNOW a lot of you 'I got mine' Jackists have not read the fine print on those lovely health insurance forms you have ... yes friend... just like life insurance, a lot of them have exclusions .... hope yours doesn't, the day you (god (if I believed in one) forbid) hit that CAT at 100'

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

>So you are asking me to pay for a system that I can't use . . .

No, you can use it if you choose. Or you can choose not to use it.

No What I am saying I do not want to pay for a system that will not substandard, slow and costly.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You may never use Yosemite - but you pay for its maintenance. You may never use I-80 in Wyoming, but you pay for that as well. You may never use flight following, but you still pay for ATC.

I think all those things should be supported by user fees from those who actually use them.

Saying "well, we already do things you think are wrong, so what's one more thing?" isn't a very compelling argument.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com