|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 8, 2009 19:26:43 GMT -8
Lame.
My opinion is tipping strongly against universal health care over the last few weeks (from my original neutral starting point)
|
|
|
|
Post by nathaniel on Aug 9, 2009 2:16:52 GMT -8
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 10, 2009 9:43:23 GMT -8
Lame. My opinion is tipping strongly against universal health care over the last few weeks (from my original neutral starting point) As is the case with most Americans. The majority of Americans now disapprove of Obama's handling of the health care debate. Laine and I have printed off the Health care bill being proposed, and have been reading through it. So far we have read over 300 pages of the 1,100 page bill, and have found the proponents of the bill are not being honest about what it is. It is now obvious why Obama wanted this bill passed so quickly without allowing for a robust debate. Now that folks are getting wind of what this bill will do to our health care system and economy, the tide of public opinion is changing drastically. I better be careful about what I say though. Someone might report me to the White house.  (see article linked below) www.redstate.com/jeff_emanuel/2009/08/04/call-for-informants-if-you-oppose-obamacare-the-white-house-wants-to-know-about-it/ |
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Aug 10, 2009 16:07:58 GMT -8
Myself and the President were born in Hawaii so I am coming after you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2009 22:10:03 GMT -8
Nate- you asked why I was becoming anti-universal health care. Four main reasons: 1) I originally thought of universal health care as a ground-level option for those who haven't had it. I didn't realize that it will most likely eventually monopolize the market down to a "single payer" system, which will lead to two problems: 2) Insurance policies that don't cover abortions won't exist. 3) Innovation driven by competition will be seriously affected 4) We could find ourselves with a healthcare system like Canada's  |
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 11, 2009 7:48:07 GMT -8
Myself and the President were born in Hawaii so I am coming after you. We don't know for sure where he was born, right? ;D |
|
ben
Advanced Member
Posts: 115
|
Post by ben on Aug 11, 2009 16:02:57 GMT -8
Maybe, but we in Hawaii adopted him.
|
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 11, 2009 16:58:12 GMT -8
i personally dont think universal healthcare should be accepted, nor do i think normal healthcare is even supposed to be in our present politics. healthcare was not supposed to last this long.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 12, 2009 6:58:02 GMT -8
At this point, I would think that you would want to give him back.  I think I agree with you. Though, I'm not sure that I understand your last sentence. Robin |
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 12, 2009 21:18:27 GMT -8
health care is pretty much if not exactly part of the new deal. the new deal was supposed to stop at the end of the depression, because the president knew that it would get us out, but, paradoxally, it would put us in if the new deal stayed in place after the depression.
healthcare is a good program morally- but only on short terms. long term, it could be one of the causes of the nation going into a depression, which may destroy america by weakening it for invasion by othe rcountries. that is obviously morally wrong- thousands of people will be killed if that happens./
of course, healthcare would only be minor factor. we hvae debt and horrible presidents/ legistation to worry about, as well as the fact that the dollar bill is not backed by gold so is just paper to surrounding countries. on top of that, a world currency is getting pretty popular, and its not going to be the dollar, ill tell you that. if its not the dollar, we are aboutas screwed as a dead puppy (excuse the crude language).
anyway, i have a lot to say about politics, so i will elave it at that and post more later.
shalom- john
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 22, 2009 23:41:06 GMT -8
I think that if we were starting over from scratch a univeral single payor system would make the most sense. However, since we already have established insurance companies a few simple rule changes would do the trick. 1st the Government takes care of all catastrophic cases where the individuals health care costs for a single incident exceeds 100K. Second, Insurance companies can no longer limit care recieved based on "pre-existing conditions." and finally the government pays graduated portion of health insurance rates beginning at 100 percent for everyone who falls within 150% of the poverty line and graduating up to 0 percent for those making more than 175K a year.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 23, 2009 19:10:04 GMT -8
Robin-
I'm curious to hear your thoughts on Krhagan's ideas (Robin works in insurance)
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 11:59:46 GMT -8
Another important point. Abortion caselaw is constantly changing. In some states for example it is against the law for an insurance company NOT to cover 'theraputic (read elective) abortion because their state supreme court has ruled that, that unconstitutionally limits limits a womans right to choose. Furthermore, many aging conservative justices it seems likely Obama is going to get another appointment or so to the big court. As a result, I believe that it is entirely possible that it will be mandated that all insurance cover abortions. Another interesting example. Our older liturgical brethren the Roman Catholics, Despise with all of their hearts the birth control pill because they consider it abortoficient. That is to say a fertized egg (new life) will not implant on the uterine wall, thus accidently causing an abortion. Recently 2007 took effect in 2008. The Oregon State Legislator requires ALL HEALTH INSURANCE PLANS to pay for the pill. So as you can see even without "Single Payer System" health insurance plans could still be forced to cover abortion. Another point I would like to make is whether they cover it or not is a total irellevency. Most employers have multiple healthcare options. As a result if someone is in the mood to have an abortion, they will choose a plan that covers it. Finally, being a Christian with a healthcare plan that pays for abortions isn't materially different than being a Christian with a healthcare plan that does not. You don't want to have an abortion? Then DON"T HAVE ONE! The only argument that I could see against this is that some of your premiums that you pay would go to pay for abortions and thus you would be helping the abortion industry. To that I say, your already paying for abortions. The largest providers of abortion in the USA get funding from state and local governments which come directly out of your paycheck, so we are all unwilling complicit in the funding of abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Aug 24, 2009 15:34:30 GMT -8
Currently their is no federal law that requires abortions to be covered. Yes, state by state you will find different mandates on health insurance plans, however as a US citizen I can choose to move to another state or go un-insured, and simply pay for my own health care out of Pocket. Under the prosed legislation these options will no longer be available, therefore leave no option for the conscientious objector to abstain from participating.
|
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 16:51:39 GMT -8
true, but your federal, state, and local taxes will STILL be going to paying for abortions so guess what, you are still participating! Furthermore, if you pay for your healthcare out of pocket, it will cost more, as you won't get the insurance companies discount, and the extra profit that the hospitals make will go to their "Charity care" fund, which, guess what . . . pays for abortions. I know you don't like this reality, unless you go extremely radical, stop seeing doctors all together, and then stop paying your taxes and go to jail, you will be in some way complicit with the funding of abortion.
|
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jan 20, 2010 9:16:04 GMT -8
I never thought I would say this, but thank you Massachusetts. It is amazing how quickly things change. Just one year ago Obama enjoyed a 70% approval rating and won the state of Massachusetts by 23 points. Now Obama has a approval rating of below 50% and a republican who ran against everything that Obama stands for won by 6 points.
Perhaps now we can save the best health care system in the world from the greedy hands of the Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jan 20, 2010 16:07:59 GMT -8
Robin- I'm curious what changes do you think the "health care system" does need to make?
|
|
(see article linked below)
