alphieb
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,982
- Reaction score
- 31
- Location
- Vincennes IN
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
alphieb said:I believe we need National Health bad, people cannot afford the premiums or the deductibles and it is just getting discharged in bankruptcies.
ptsdkid said:An addendum to government inteference with health care:
Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?
ptsdkid said:An addendum to government inteference with health care:
Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?
hipsterdufus said:Yeah man, let them all die the freakin leeches and bloodsuckers!
Oh - time for church brb. :roll:
ptsdkid said:An addendum to government inteference with health care:
Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?
Goobieman said:The words "not just no, but HELL NO " come to mind.
Questions for the Pro-Universal Health Care crowd:
Where, specifically, is the federal government granted the power to create any legislation regarding health care?
(Hint: you need to cite the US Constitution)
Why do people think that the government should take care of everyone, all the time, regarding everything?
Why do people think that I, personally, am responsible for providing health care to complete strangers?
How do complete strangers have a right to MY money?
ptsdkid said:***Do you have a particular socialist medical plan in mind, or are you excited about copying Canada's or the Hillary-Care plan?
Privatizing is the key word. Bush's plan to privatize 6% of Social Security monies makes sense. So would privatizing or investing a portion of earned income into medical accounts. Using or depending on government to baby sit one's every functional need or desire is troubling and dangerous, both economically and socially.
hipsterdufus said:Yeah man, let them all die the freakin leeches and bloodsuckers!
Oh - time for church brb. :roll:
alphieb said:What does welfare, which you are referring to have to do with NHC?
ptsdkid said:***No need to play semantics here. NHC is government sponsored, i.e. the tax paying people pay for it. Just like the tax payers pay for food stamps and welfare checks etc. Subsidized housing and W.I.C. programs are also derivatives of the entire welfare boondoggle. I could name more, but you get the message.
ptsdkid said:An addendum to government inteference with health care:
Where in the Constitution does it say that we must pay to feed, house and clothe anyone that has assumed leech status?
You poor misguided sheep. You're a real posterboy for the GOP.ptsdkid said:***Do you have a particular socialist medical plan in mind, or are you excited about copying Canada's or the Hillary-Care plan?
Privatizing is the key word. Bush's plan to privatize 6% of Social Security monies makes sense. So would privatizing or investing a portion of earned income into medical accounts. Using or depending on government to baby sit one's every functional need or desire is troubling and dangerous, both economically and socially.
ptsdkid said:Advantages of (HSA) Health Savings Accounts:
SECURITY: Your high deductible insurance and HAS protect you against high unexpected medical bills.
AFFORDABILITY: You should be able to lower health insurance premiums by switching to health insurance coverage with a higher deductible.
FLEXIBILITY: You can use the funds in your account to pay for current medical costs including expenses that your insurance may not cover, or save the money in escrow for future needs, such as:
* Health insurance or medical expenses if unemployed
* Medical expenses after retirement (before Medicare)
* Out-of-pocket expenses when covered by Medicare
* Long-term care expenses and insurance
SAVINGS You can save the money in your account for future expenses or grow your account through investment earnings.
CONTROL: You make all the decisions about:
* How much money to put into the account (with in the maximum annual allowances)
* Whether to save the account for future expenses or pay current medical expenses
* Which medical expenses to pay from the account
* Which company/bank will hold the account
* Whether to invest any of the money in the account
* Which investments to make
PORTABILITY: Accounts are completely portable, meaning you can keep your account whenever you:
*change jobs
* Change your medical coverage
* Become unemployed
* Move to another state
* Change your marital status
OWNERSHIP: Funds remain in the account from year to year, just like an IRA, there are no use it or lose it rule for HAS’s.
TAX SAVINGS: An HSA provides you triple tax savings:
* tax deductions when you contribute to your account
* tax-free earnings through investment
* tax-free withdrawals for qualified medical expenses.
The problems with a National Health Care program are numerous. But the problem with those proposing a Hillary-care type program is that the liberals’ feel the need (almost their obligation) to have big government take care of everyone. Liberals are against capitalism, against investing, against making money in any way, and believe that Americans in general cannot think and act for themselves. Most Americans would agree with me, that we would rather have control over our investments and over our own privatized accounts concerning health, food, employment, housing or whatever else we deem important.
No vote again, I do not care for the options.alphieb said:I want a general idea of how you feel about our current Health Care situation. Please vote and explain.
DeeJayH said:absolutely not
it would cripple the economy of the US just as it has the nations that have it.
safety nets....absolutely
but i do not want the govt in charge of my healthcare
earthworm said:No vote again, I do not care for the options.
I do know that Blue Cross/Blue Shield are extremely expensive and , as a result ,wasteful.
Medical insurance, or any insurance are inefficient and promote unneeded treatment and procedures, IMO..
On that basis we should revert to the old system , NO INSURANCE !, instead pay as you go, and pay only for what you need - no more no less....But this only works for the responsible man who is smart and careful, and lucky.
With more insurance, and more "someone else pay", anyone but me, the medical price increases, and some one ultimately pays.
I believe that people should spend at least several hundred per year on their own maintenance, each and every year of their life. Then they should have a "catastrophic account" to cover serious medical emergencies....
Correction, greedy health insurance company's pocket.alphieb said:How exactly would it hurt our economy? Don't you think the millions filing medical bankruptcy and throwing in their credit cards with it is hurting our economy? How about those through the roof premiums? That is taking money out of pockets that could be put back into the economy instead of some greedy doctor's pocket.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?