Lucky... 0 #51 October 26, 2009 QuoteAnd done it without insults. HUH? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #52 October 26, 2009 Quote So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 October 26, 2009 >the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it. Correct. Result - bankrupted hospitals, doctors and urgent care facilities, skyrocketing health care costs and overcrowded ER's. We should come up with a better solution. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #54 October 26, 2009 Quote In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy? Why do we want people to be more involved in government?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #55 October 26, 2009 >Why do we want people to be more involved in government? I don't. I think people should be involved enough to understand the issues they are voting on, but that's about it. The premise of the original post was that if you get something for free, you're not that interested in how it runs, and that that was a bad thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #56 October 26, 2009 Quote>the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it. Correct. Result - bankrupted hospitals, doctors and urgent care facilities, skyrocketing health care costs and overcrowded ER's. We should come up with a better solution. correct we need to fix some issues in health care. Like send some illegals home so legal citizens can get into the emergency room in less than 2-3 hours. Oh and that will open up jobs so the unemployment rate would drop and some more people could actually afford health ins and the reduced number of people not paying would reduce the hospitals costs and that would reduce ins costs. wow i guess it really isnt that hard to start something today, we wouldn't even need to change any laws or even start a new department in the government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #57 October 26, 2009 So it's all the illegal's fault. There's a well thought out and comprehensive analysis of the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #58 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteFine, so there is no definitive evidence one way or the other that the OP argument is true. It is therefore an unproven assertion. And your position is also not supported by anything but anecdotal evidence.... So I guess it fails as well. And I have posted as much data as you ever have. Prove it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #59 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuote>>>No sense of ownership = no respect Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car? Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership. How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary. Or the public air? Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub? Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose. So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #60 October 26, 2009 QuoteSo it's all the illegal's fault. There's a well thought out and comprehensive analysis of the issue. All? No. Some? Yes. Don't start the sensationalizing again. Quote>the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it. Correct. Result - bankrupted hospitals, doctors and urgent care facilities, skyrocketing health care costs and overcrowded ER's. We should come up with a better solution. I don't understand why you think opening up free HC will reduce costs or keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. Increasing taxes on the rich, insurance companies, and businesses will not reduce costs. It certainly won't reduce the number of people going to the doctor. What, specifically, in the HC bill will reduce costs? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #61 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuote So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it b and can only use it an case of emergencies, then the creditors ensure they stay poor and running by pursing them if they try to better themselves out of it. Fixed it Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuote In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy? Why do we want people to be more involved in government? Good point, money over people every time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #63 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy? Why do we want people to be more involved in government? Good point, money over people every time. ???-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #64 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>>>No sense of ownership = no respect Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car? Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership. How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary. Or the public air? Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub? Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose. So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. Which is NOT the same as the claim in the OP. I wonder how many here received "free" public education but didn't care how it went.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #65 October 26, 2009 Quote Oh and that will open up jobs so the unemployment rate would drop and some more people could actually afford health ins ... Actually, I have a freind as an RN and he runs this rhetoric too, I remind him that w/o these horrible illegals he would either assume a hige pay cut due to reduced work and an RN surplus, or lose his job altogether. Quote ...and the reduced number of people not paying would reduce the hospitals costs and that would reduce ins costs. I;m sure HMO's would be right up front and reduce premiums as costs fell. Quote wow i guess it really isnt that hard to start something today, we wouldn't even need to change any laws or even start a new department in the government. No, we just need to have a realistic grasp of the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #66 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote>>>No sense of ownership = no respect Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car? Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership. How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary. Or the public air? Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub? Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose. So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. - Awesome, explain the method by which some will pay for what others get in the way of HC. - Who will pay? - How will they pay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #67 October 26, 2009 > Some? Yes. Agreed. It's a small part of the overall problem. >Don't start the sensationalizing again. That would be Marks. >I don't understand why you think opening up free HC will reduce >costs or keep hospitals from being overwhelmed. Do you understand that many people consider themselves to have free health care right now? (i.e. just go and don't pay.) >What, specifically, in the HC bill will reduce costs? An insurance exchange that requires coverage of pre-existing conditions will reduce costs for people with said pre-existing conditions. A public option will provide competition to private companies; competition reduces costs. Standardization of reporting will save billions in clerical costs. Things not in the bill that would reduce costs: Tort reform Cost reporting transparency Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #68 October 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote In that case we should increase taxes across the board, to make people more involved in government. Would that make you happy? Why do we want people to be more involved in government? Good point, money over people every time. ??? You're saying < people in gov = better gov. When the issue is HC the < people in gov = more people in sickness and disorder. So since HC cost money and you don't want to see the gov spend that for teh sake of smaller gov; money over people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #69 October 26, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote >>>No sense of ownership = no respect Absolutely. How does one treat a rental car versus their car? Check out a housing project. No ownership. They go to shit because there is no pride of ownership. How about a public restroom? No thanks unless aboslutely necessary. Or the public air? Or a public swimming pool? Who pisses in their bathtub? Ownership gives people something to take care of. Neglect results from not caring. Caring results from having something to lose. So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. I wonder how many here received "free" public education but didn't care how it went. By the responses from the right: quite a few. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #70 October 26, 2009 QuoteDo you understand that many people consider themselves to have free health care right now? Creating a federal system will not change this, it will simply relocate the financial burden. Currently, the burden is mostly localized to wherever the person goes, and is absorbed largely by the taxpayers in that county, with the remainder absorbed by the taxpayers in that state. Under a federal system, the burden would be allocated to federal taxpayers (assuming that the feds don't just shift the payment burden down to the state level anyway). Is that really such a large difference (especially if the feds shift a large part of the burden down to the states anyway)?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #71 October 26, 2009 QuoteYou're saying < people in gov = better gov. No, I'm not. I'm asking if anyone can explain a reason for increasing the involvement rate of the people in the government. Further, I'm asking if that reason is compelling enough that we ought to be somehow pursuing it as a public policy. Personally, I'd rejoice if the government would just leave me the hell alone. I'd happily spend the rest of my days having zero involvement in government, not thinking about government policies, and minding my own damn business. Unfortunately, I think that's unlikely to happen.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #72 October 26, 2009 >Creating a federal system will not change this, it will simply relocate the >financial burden. Agreed. It will basically provide a formalized way for such expenses to be paid, replacing the informal method of bankruptcy, overcrowding and higher insurance rates we have now. >Is that really such a large difference? In effect? No. In practice? It will save the money currently spent on bankruptcy lawyers, hospital de-commissioning, paperwork etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #73 October 26, 2009 What's the cost difference between the current system and the creation of a new federal bureaucracy? In the immediate term, or in the long term?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #74 October 26, 2009 Quote Quote I wonder how many here received "free" public education but didn't care how it went. By the responses from the right: quite a few. I hate to interrupt your high-fiving, but public education costs are largely funded by state and local property taxes, which means if you went to the schools, you paid for it. Or, more accurately, your parents paid for it, and they were the ones in charge of making sure YOU got THEIR money's worth. My parents actually researched high schools and moved to a neighborhood so my sisters and I would go to a particular public high school. They also paid more in property taxes at that home. This is in contrast to... well... anything financed by federal income tax. Fortunately we have a republic instead of a democracy so the "bread and circuses" effect is usually limited. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to ignore the possibility or mock those who would bring it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #75 October 26, 2009 >What's the cost difference between the current system and the >creation of a new federal bureaucracy? Current costs are pretty straightforward - around $43 billion and growing. I don't know how to estimate the cost of "the creation of a new federal bureaucracy" nor do I think we would need one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
