..without an alternative.
-
JamesAvalon — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 05:34 AM)
I'd say the Dems got more stupidest. And much more partisanest. The Dems today are NOT the Dems of 1996. That is a fact. They are much further to the Left. Back then, they were actually against illegal immigration. Today, they NEED illegals because their ideas are SO BAD they can't keep any voters in America so they need to bring new ones in by enticing them with citizenship.
No Democrat today would DARE utter 'The era of big government is over!'. I miss that Bill Clinton, who actually cut taxes, which further fueled economic growth! He was able to work with the GOP! Go figure!
Now, the Dems are a bunch of whiny crybabies who throw a tantrum every time they don't get their way. -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 06:36 AM)
Switch Dem with Rep and left with right, and you could say the same thing. Illegals DON'T vote. So, can you get that particular boogeyman out of your head? The ignorance of that statement alone is indicative of why this country is so torn apart right now.
I don't like the EC, but it is the law of the land. People arguing "illegals" voting as the reason Trump lost the popular vote are as ignorant as the people expecting the EC or Congress to invalidate his election. Both sides need to stop spreading lies and focus on running this country.
Bill Clinton had Republicans that were willing to work with him. Barack Obama did not. We can argue partisan politics from here to eternity, but anyone that says the GOP (and frankly all of the DEMs) were willing to work with President Obama is a liar. -
JamesAvalon — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 07:35 AM)
Switch Dem with Rep and left with right, and you could say the same thing. Illegals DON'T vote. So, can you get that particular boogeyman out of your head? The ignorance of that statement alone is indicative of why this country is so torn apart right now.
Illegals do vote. If you believe otherwise, you are crazy.
I don't like the EC, but it is the law of the land. People arguing "illegals" voting as the reason Trump lost the popular vote are as ignorant as the people expecting the EC or Congress to invalidate his election. Both sides need to stop spreading lies and focus on running this country.
How many illegals voted for Hillary in California alone? Do you ever wonder?
Bill Clinton had Republicans that were willing to work with him. Barack Obama did not. We can argue partisan politics from here to eternity, but anyone that says the GOP (and frankly all of the DEMs) were willing to work with President Obama is a liar.
Barack Obama was not willing to work with anyone. Dem or Republican. Did you not notice that? -
mrbean-87852 — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 07:45 PM)
I'm surprised the percentage is not higher. I think that everyone would want an alternative of some sort. Unfortunately, Obamacare wasn't affordable. You guys really do need a single payer health care system. Yes, there will be longer wait times but you won't lose your house if you get cancer.
-
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 06, 2017 09:46 PM)
Yes, there will be longer wait times but you won't lose your house if you get cancer.
We should have never allowed a for-profit medical system at all. It's really sad when people who get illnesses like cancer can lose their homes while CEO's of health insurance companies can earn 8-9 figures a year in compensation. -
pjpurple-1 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 11:12 AM)
LOL My first thought exactly!
I think I understand zabbree's sentiments. There is something immoral about bankrupting people who seek health care. These are some complicated issues and I don't pretend to have the answers.
But not having a "for profit" medical system? WHY would you expect nurses, doctors, medical technicians, pharmacists, scientists and researchers who develop life saving drugs NOT to make a profit?
My son finished nursing school last year. My niece just graduated from pharmacy school. They worked very HARD. They have accrued a lot of school debt. Why should they not expect to make a good living from all their hard work?
Hollywood celebrities expect to make millions from their dopey TV shows and movies. Why shouldn't people who spend years and years training to save lives expect to make a good living?
The problem is the government inserting itself into an area in which it has NO business being in the first place. It has convinced a population of sheep that it is their Shepherd and will lead them to good health. People need to stop trusting government with their lives and well-beingmaybe actually READ the Constitution and what the government is ACTUALLY mandated to do!
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 12:32 PM)
I have no issue with doctors, nurses, and anyone else in healthcare earning their due. I have a huge issue with insurance companies, which are low-balling doctors and medical facilities daily, making profits off healthcare.
Expecting people to do what's right without government intervention is extremely nave in the 21st century. -
pjpurple-1 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 02:18 PM)
Yeah,zabbree, I figured that you didn't have a problem with health care workers making a living. Insurance companies, another issue. I know there is "something" going on there which I am not in a position to argue about. I really would have to study it more.
But "expecting people to do what's right without government intervention"?? Huh, since when is the government in sole possession of morals and doing "what is right"?? Seriously, government is run by self serving sinners who are no more MORAL than the private sector. You REALLY want to put Washington in charge of such a huge part of your life? I don't.
Nancy Pelosi said that they would have to "pass the ACA bill to find out what's init." You REALLY want clueless fools like that in charge of your health care? You do know that Mrs. Pelosi and her husband made millions via insider trading and other shady practices that would get ordinary citizens a stint in jail.
For the life of me I do not understand how intelligent people are willing to give over huge chunks of their lives to elected officials who are NO better, NO more moral, NO more caring about their fellow man than private businesses.
We have the problems with health care now because of government involvement. Washington aint a church! It does not care about your welfare, it CARES about being reelected and maintaining its power and wealth!
Facts are not liberals strong suit. Rhetoric is. Thomas Sowell -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 04:19 PM)
We have the problems with health care now because of government involvement. Washington aint a church! It does not care about your welfare, it CARES about being reelected and maintaining its power and wealth!
Fewer and fewer churches offer services, and affordable healthcare should not be considered something to which only the wealthy have access.
But "expecting people to do what's right without government intervention"?? Huh, since when is the government in sole possession of morals and doing "what is right"?? Seriously, government is run by self serving sinners who are no more MORAL than the private sector. You REALLY want to put Washington in charge of such a huge part of your life? I don't.
I think government intervention of any kind would not be warranted if people treated everyone the way they want to be treated, but since that doesn't happen, I'd rather have the government involved than contending with some glorified administrators wish to get rich off my mother's cancer.
Nancy Pelosi said that they would have to "pass the ACA bill to find out what's init." You REALLY want clueless fools like that in charge of your health care? You do know that Mrs. Pelosi and her husband made millions via insider trading and other shady practices that would get ordinary citizens a stint in jail.
Nancy Pelosi is an idiot that needed to retire during the first Bush's administration. Frankly, most high ranking Democrats were no happier about President Obama being elected than the racists in this country were. If they had been willing to work with him (instead of not doing what they needed to do and hiding behind/blaming the Republican party resistance), things would have been a lot different. If they cared about the ACA at all, Democratic congressional leaders would have done more to fine-tune and sell it.
For the life of me I do not understand how intelligent people are willing to give over huge chunks of their lives to elected officials who are NO better, NO more moral, NO more caring about their fellow man than private businesses.
I completely disagree. Government is required to allocate services equally without prejudice. Private businesses can get away with not doing that in some cases. Also, they can provide services based on who can afford them. The government cannot. Having worked with different agencies, I'm of the opinion most issues with things that are government run have little to do with the individual agencies. Many of their problems stem from the legislative branch, and until they get themselves together, no other agency will work efficiently. -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 12:30 PM)
Sorry, are the CEOs of insurance companies doctors? Most aren't. No one said anything about doctors not getting their money. I said insurance companies. Replying with an ignorant and unsubstantiated claim is really silly.
-
Dagwoodie — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 01:09 PM)
CEO's of dozens of different types of corporations make similar salaries. Yet no one ever seems to care how much the CEO of Apple Corporation makes. Either socialize the whole mess (ready for VA-level care, anyone?), or find constructive ways to make healthcare more affordable (something ACA has not yet done).
And it's not the poor who are being victimized by the ACA, it's hard-working middle class individuals and small business owners who are being taxed through inflated premiums to pay for those who are subsidized - who can no longer afford the cost of a plan that offers the same benefits as those who are paying little or nothing. -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 04:29 PM)
CEO's of dozens of different types of corporations make similar salaries. Yet no one ever seems to care how much the CEO of Apple Corporation makes. Either socialize the whole mess (ready for VA-level care, anyone?), or find constructive ways to make healthcare more affordable (something ACA has not yet done).
Sorry, health insurance should not be seen in the same way as an iPhone. Health insurance should never have become a luxury item, and if we didn't have insurance companies gouging insureds and medical providers, it would be a lot less costly to provide care.
And it's not the poor who are being victimized by the ACA, it's hard-working middle class individuals and small business owners who are being taxed through inflated premiums to pay for those who are subsidized - who can no longer afford the cost of a plan that offers the same benefits as those who are paying little or nothing.
I keep hearing and reading this. Yet, no one has actually been to prove where this is the ACA's fault directly or explain why many employees were already paying this much or more in premiums. At my last employer, we paid well over 1k a month for a family plan, and that was before the ACA.
I have no sympathy for healthcare CEO's, and frankly, when you see CEO's like UHC's that got a 106 million compensation package for 2010 based on profits when his actual salary was around 1.5 million, and in 2014 he made 66 million with the same base salary. I'm supposed to feel sorry for him because he only made 20 million in 2015, when they are low-balling and strong arming the actual providers? -
Dagwoodie — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 06:35 PM)
I have no sympathy for healthcare CEO's, and frankly, when you see CEO's like UHC's that got a 106 million compensation package for 2010 based on profits when his actual salary was around 1.5 million, and in 2014 he made 66 million with the same base salary. I'm supposed to feel sorry for him because he only made 20 million in 2015, when they are low-balling and strong arming the actual providers?
Understand, and agree that CEO's in many or most industries get obscene salaries and compensation, even after less than stellar years for the corporation. But I recognize, too, that certain industries are continually targeted as the most convenient of scapegoats, while others are given absolution in the media or public eye. And not because those industries given a pass are any less greedy or more philanthropic.
Take away the perks and golden parachutes and apply it to cutting costs? A nice place to start, but probably far less effect than most of us would hope or expect. And I believe that, when it comes to low-balling the providers, government programs are paying physicians and others even less than corporate healthcare coverage providers.
By its very nature, ACA forces rate increases. Those most likely to enroll are high-risk individuals who either have been without coverage or have been forced before now to pay unreasonable rates. And that sends both premiums and deductibles through the roof for those who aren't fortunate enough to be part of an established and wide ranging (in terms of enrollment) plan such as is offered to employees of major businesses, to teachers, civil servants, etc.
I'm not for denying coverage or medical care to those who need it, but the farce that was passed by lying and arm-twisting is now burdening millions of others beyond their ability to cope financially. Millions of people (many of whom had plans that were a much more reasonable and cost-effective fit for their particular ages, lifestyles and needs) were forced either to enroll in much costlier plans or to pay a penalty. And many of those enrolled in the ACA are afraid to seek medical care now because they can't even afford the deductibles anymore. -
zabbree — 9 years ago(January 08, 2017 08:16 PM)
The ACA did not have to force rate increases. They should never have used the for-profit insurance model. They should have created a single-payer system, but the insurance lobby is too powerful. The ACA was the result of compromises to appease the insurance companies, and it backfired on everyone.
If you look at any EOB, you can see that insurance companies are lowballing doctors and facilities, while keeping them from offering the same negotiated rates to people that do not have insurance. Service payments are reduced 40-50% before the insurance companies pay a dime, and then, they may still not have to pay the reduced portion due to deductibles. So, we are basically paying insurance payments for negotiated rates with the providers. Why not allow the providers to negotiate directly with the patient? That's what they used to be able to do.
Once I became self-employed, I was unable to get more than catastrophic care insurance better known as hospitalization only. It did not cover doctor visits, my prescriptions were only covered up to 40% co-insurance, and I still had a 5-10k deductible for many years all because my daughter had asthma. The ACA allowed me to at least get decent insurance as a self-employed person. Doctor visits are covered, and I have a co-pay for prescriptions. I'm still paying around 1k a month, but I have more benefits. The ACA isn't perfect, but it was definitely better than what we had and not just for lower-income people. -
pvd295 — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 02:56 PM)
And how dare those lazy no-good doctors expect to earn enough to pay off their med-school debts!!
Wow - you know nothing at all about the medical profession. The money is NOT going to doctors to pay off their school debts, which is why so many doctors are leaving the profession, or taking early retirement. They are working very hard, yet being second-guessed by insurance companies who think they know how to treat the patients and what cause of action to take just so the health insurance company can save some money, and get paid very little for their knowledge and workjust so the CEOS of health insurance can buy another private jet for their wives.
CEO's of dozens of different types of corporations make similar salaries. Yet no one ever seems to care how much the CEO of Apple Corporation makes.
Most idiotic statement for 2017! You want to compare a CEO who's in charge of manufacturing technology to that of the CEO who is in charge of life or death situations? Are you insane?
The CEO of Apple is not making the judgement call if someone 'qualifies' for a heart transplant, based on hoe much money the company is profiting for the quarter.
"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 -
Dagwoodie — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 04:08 PM)
You don't seem to be able to grasp anything that I was actually posting. I realize that your binge drinking has likely escalated since November, but please try to show some semblance of comprehension or coherency in responding.