Oh That Dreaded Health Care Law - Obama Cares!

You are technically correct. The bill does not specify that there shall be death panels under any name. What it does say is that such and such and so and so can write regulations to control the costs. Since those regulations have not been written yet, neither you can say that there will not be such a thing nor can I say there will. That is exactly the point that started this discussion. The law cannot be explained yet because most of it does not yet exist.

BTW, if you really read what I wrote, you would find that I did not say they were set up - yet.

 

What else would you call it? BO appointees will make final decisions on how healthcare resources will be allocated...it's in the law, take your own advise & read it.

Care to back up this allegation? My bet is that you can't & won't.

 

Maybe I don't understand the law completely, like many others it seems like, but repealing it will cost the taxpayers money, no one seems to dispute that. Can't the law be changed instead of repealled?

I lost my wife and two children in a car accident ten years ago this month. No sympathies, I am trying to explain what happened to me, but there appreciated. All three were taken to the hospital, I had insurance. My wife survived for two weeks in intensive care, my youngest son made it one month with a host of different operations and treatments. My oldest son lived six months. The doctor bills were over five million dollars total. My insurance policy have an individual cap, one million per person. My youngest and oldest son both exceeded their lifetime caps, so I was left with the amount over one million dollars. Now I don't know about anyone else, but this law lifts that lifetime limit. It allows people with preconsisting conditions to find insurance, it allows children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 25, it makes it mandatory for people to get insurance and it supplements people who cannot afford insurance, so they can get insurance. Now I agree with all of that. If we are paying for people who do not have insurance to go to the doctor, then I think that is wrong.

Now I have not heard of any other alternative to this health care law other than to repeal it. Health care costs are running out of control and we are doing nothing. Surely people can see that?

 

I will be the SOB to tell you this. Whatever they spends on you must come from someones pocket. The supply is not unlimited. At some point, someone has got to say that is the end. Result is someone or someone else dies at some point when the money runs out.

Now I am sorry for your loss, but those are the facts.

 

No one spent anything on me, I never said that. I saying that even with insurance I was left with a unreasonable medical bill because of those facts and I think the health care law addressed those problems I had. Now I really don't even understand your argument against what I wrote. So you don't think everyone should have insurance and we should still be paying for the uninsured. I don't understand your response. I am saying that everyone should have insurance and there should be no lifetime limit. I am just assuming you disagree with that.

 

I never said anyone spent on you. What I said was the supply is not unlimited. You said basically that "this law lifts that lifetime limit", "preconsisting [preexisting] conditions to find insurance", "it allows children to remain on their parents insurance until they are 25". etc. Each one of those ADDITIONAL coverages costs more money. They are absolutely not free. Whee does that money come from?

 

I agree that it has to be paid for, but I also agree with it. Now surely those funds can come from somewhere. Maybe quit giving money away to corrupt governments like Pakinstan. But I do know one thing. America's health care system is too expensive and no one should go bankrupt because they get sick. That is what I believe. Make the market more competitive, pass laws restricting law suits, allow people to buy insurance from other states and keep the good things that are in the health care law. What is wrong with that? I don't see repealing it as a viable option that will save us money. It is a starting place that can be built upon.

Side note: yes preexisting conditions, thanks for the correction.

 

But the entire foreign aid budget, the entire welfare budget, and many other budgets will not cover the costs in a couple decades - and that according to the CBO. Translation, it will bankrupt the USA.

 

You have hardly given me any indication of being able to listen to reason. Every discussion we have, every answer I've given to your slanted questioning, no matter how direct and to the point I am to your intentional misdirections, no matter how succinct I am to your misguided partisan talking-points, no matter what I say, you hardly ever have the decency to admit to their even being a shred of credibility to them. Your near-complete lack of acknowledgement of any successful counterpoint by anyone to your sometimes belligerent questions forces me to treat you in a manner befitting them. I find you are not worthy of a direct response on this particular line of questioning, as you have, once again, framed the questions in such an obtuse way as to make any answer anyone gives insufficient to your own personal beliefs. Once again, you have insisted on questioning me in the as typical insulting manner you are famed for.

 

That sounds just like moen. As soon as you cannot raise any valid points, you simply resort to insults. Maybe you two think insulting is a valid counterpoint, but no one else does - most especially that side you are trying to convince of something.

 

Oh, I will reply to the question in a way befitting it, not that your type of immature, gregarious personality will ever see it as a convincing argument. I am currently writing it but, because of the nature of the ignorance among your kind, and the sheer determination your kind puts into the effort to convince people of outright lies, I will defer posting it until I deem it ready to be posted.

I have had overwhelming experience though that your kind isn't truly interested in proof, or of promoting truths. Your kind is determinedly aggressive towards avoiding honesty, both with yourselves and everyone else. Your kind is despicable and unworthy of serious debate.

 

Oh! My! I am shaking in my boots. The dictionaries were too much for you?

 

I'm still trying to figure out how being "gregarious" is a bad thing.

 

And "the sheer determination your kind puts into the effort"? Huh? And all I wanted him to do was support his definition.

 

HM, if you haven't realized it yet, IQ<1 doesn't know the meaning of very many words. "Poor" being one word that springs to mind. "Gregarious" would be another. "Intelligent" would be yet another. Ah, how I enjoy trading barbs with our resident lapdog. Oh, forgive me IQ<1, "barb" as used in this context means "a disparaging remark".

 

Surely everyone agrees that we have to do something? And I think taking care of Americans is a priority. Now if an idea does not work, then it can be changed, but we have to do something or people will, and I believe are, not getting the health care they require because they cannot afford and die because of it. I just don't understand why we can't add on some of the republican ideas and do away with some of the poor things that are in the new health care law, besides repealing the whole thing.

 

Yes, but why not start with something that has been shown to do some good in stead of something that has been shown to mess up the entire system and its government. For instance;
Why should I pay $10,000,000 for Dr. X leaving a sponge in a patient? (Yes, you and I pay that regardless of whose pocket the money comes from.)
Why should insurance companies not be allowed to compete across state lines?
Why not get more doctors educated? More doctors means more competition which means both lower cost and less likelihood of poor doctors (those who raise insurance rates) surviving.
And there are many other means.

Another method would be to copy whatever our local hospital is doing. I spent 23 days in the hospital a couple years ago mostly in ICU (lung cancer, lung resection, pneumonia). According to moen, my bill should have been north of $250,000. My actual bill was only $69,000.

 

To be perfectly honest, people with self-inflicted diseases should pay their entire hospital bill themselves. Why should we pay for your smoking habit? Why should anyone pay for someone who has the choice to quit but continues to smoke? You'll probably to try to fake your illness as environmental but let's be real here, the single most probable cause of lung cancer is smoking. It far and away accounts for the vast, vast number of lung cancer patients. Smoking costs this country billions annually because people think that they should have the right to smoke a deadly product. And I think they should have the right too but they should also have the responsibility to pay for the consequences of their actions. I know you'll deny being a smoker but the odds are just too great against that likelihood.

 

I am not disagreeing with you rlm's cents, what I am trying to say, if I wasn't clear I apologize, is that there are good ideas on both sides and we should take those ideas and blend them, but no one seems to want to do that. Now the health care law is law now. Repealing it is a bad idea, but we can fix the problems. I totally agree with limiting the lawsuits, people being able to cross state lines to purchase health care, but I also agree that insurance companies should not refuse to cover someone and that there should not be a lifetime limit on the amount of health insurance will pay. I don't understand why we can't come to some compromise where all the good ideas are combined. That really is what makes no sense to me. Our politicians, and some people here, don't seem to want to do that. Would you not agree?

 

So, secondhand smoke doesn't exist in Moenworld?