Post Reply
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View About That Individual Mandate
2 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2012 - 10:53PM #31
teilhard
Posts: 49,874

I AGREE that "Life" is "Un-Equal," hence the perceived Social-Ethical NEED for the Strong and Fortunate to HELP the Weak and UN-Fortunate ...


It's what we call, "Civilization" -- as distinct from "The Jungle" ...


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Bodean wrote:


No we don't.  We don't have anyting near what I'm talking about.


... and ... I dont' buy the "Unequal" .. social justice slant.  Life ain't equal.  Deal with it.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:24PM, teilhard wrote:


***We've already GOT such a System for the Indigent -- it's called "The County Hospital,"  


 UNEQUAL)


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Jasr wrote:


If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.


The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.





I wouldn't ...


I design ***a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.


I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare.  I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now.  I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.


My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.













Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 12:28AM #32
aarroottoonn
Posts: 3,128

Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:53PM, teilhard wrote:


I AGREE that "Life" is "Un-Equal," hence the perceived Social-Ethical NEED for the Strong and Fortunate to HELP the Weak and UN-Fortunate ...


It's what we call, "Civilization" -- as distinct from "The Jungle" ...


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Bodean wrote:


No we don't.  We don't have anyting near what I'm talking about.


... and ... I dont' buy the "Unequal" .. social justice slant.  Life ain't equal.  Deal with it.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:24PM, teilhard wrote:


***We've already GOT such a System for the Indigent -- it's called "The County Hospital,"  


 UNEQUAL)


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Jasr wrote:


If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.


The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.





I wouldn't ...


I design ***a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.


I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare.  I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now.  I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.


My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.
















Then we agree. I too wish to help the weak and unfortunate. I don't wish to help the lazy, or those that think, simply by virtue of being, that they are entitled to anything. I also don't support keeping people on the dole forever, which is exactly what the left wants (it is a sad testament that they have been so successful in doing so, but even sadder that they are so unconcerned with their own responsibility for the plight of so many. But then it becomes a feedback loop, we don't feel responsible for the consequences of our actions, becuase that is our goal in the end.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 1:44AM #33
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:28AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


I too wish to help the weak and unfortunate. I don't wish to help the lazy, or those that think, simply by virtue of being, that they are entitled to anything.



Then by al means start designing a smart welfare state in the USA!

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 7:03AM #34
teilhard
Posts: 49,874

***I have long thought that our Society in general would benefit from less Judgment of others and more Empathy ...


E.g., The Wealthy Fortunate OverLords could take OFF the Suit-and-Tie and come OUT from the Comfy Office and do some REAL Work, with their Hands, in Conditions that are physically demanding, dirty, noisy, dangerous ...


Jun 8, 2012 -- 12:28AM, aarroottoonn wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:53PM, teilhard wrote:


I AGREE that "Life" is "Un-Equal," hence the perceived Social-Ethical NEED for the Strong and Fortunate to HELP the Weak and UN-Fortunate ...


It's what we call, "Civilization" -- as distinct from "The Jungle" ...


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:32PM, Bodean wrote:


No we don't.  We don't have anyting near what I'm talking about.


... and ... I dont' buy the "Unequal" .. social justice slant.  Life ain't equal.  Deal with it.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:24PM, teilhard wrote:


***We've already GOT such a System for the Indigent -- it's called "The County Hospital,"  


 UNEQUAL)


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bodean wrote:


Jun 7, 2012 -- 9:47AM, Jasr wrote:


If I were designing a health care system I would take for-profit insurance out of the picture altogether, and fund a state level single payer pool with a progressive payroll tax.


The Heritage Foundation scheme that Obamacare has adopted is actually a major compromise and a sop to big insurance, which the Republican party gleefully portrays as "socialistic" for the benefit of its know-nothing constituents.





I wouldn't ...


I design ***a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.


I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare.  I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now.  I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.


My plan is the only plan that preserves all. ... and it would cost a fraction of what we spend today.
















Then we agree. I too wish to help the weak and unfortunate. ***I don't wish to help the lazy, or those that think, simply by virtue of being, that they are entitled to anything. I also don't support keeping people on the dole forever, which is exactly what the left wants (it is a sad testament that they have been so successful in doing so, but even sadder that they are so unconcerned with their own responsibility for the plight of so many. But then it becomes a feedback loop, we don't feel responsible for the consequences of our actions, becuase that is our goal in the end.)





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:02AM #35
Bodean
Posts: 9,204

Oh yeah .. and the filthy rich in Hollywood, could divest themselves of their Billions to support their own causes, as opposed to supporting political measures that take my hard earned money away to fund their version of a solution.


But .. no, they are selfish .. elitist, just like all leftist.  They support measures that ensure their elevated status, all the while giving lip service to "empathy".


Jun 8, 2012 -- 7:03AM, teilhard wrote:


***I have long thought that our Society in general would benefit from less Judgment of others and more Empathy ...


E.g., The Wealthy Fortunate OverLords could take OFF the Suit-and-Tie and come OUT from the Comfy Office and do some REAL Work, with their Hands, in Conditions that are physically demanding, dirty, noisy, dangerous ...


 





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 10:49AM #36
teilhard
Posts: 49,874

LOL ...


You seem to have some Special Anti-Pathy re: "Leftists" ...


(Just so you know ... I am ONE (NOT wealthy) Voter-Activist who was absolutely INCENSED at (then Candidate) John Edwards' $400 Haircut ...)


Jun 8, 2012 -- 10:02AM, Bodean wrote:


Oh yeah .. and the filthy rich in Hollywood, could divest themselves of their Billions to support their own causes, as opposed to supporting political measures that take my hard earned money away to fund their version of a solution.


But .. no, they are selfish .. elitist, just like all leftist.  They support measures that ensure their elevated status, all the while giving lip service to "empathy".


Jun 8, 2012 -- 7:03AM, teilhard wrote:


***I have long thought that our Society in general would benefit from less Judgment of others and more Empathy ...


E.g., The Wealthy Fortunate OverLords could take OFF the Suit-and-Tie and come OUT from the Comfy Office and do some REAL Work, with their Hands, in Conditions that are physically demanding, dirty, noisy, dangerous ...


 









Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:24AM #37
Jasr
Posts: 11,045

Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bodean wrote:


I design a two tier system, where private insurance pays for private care, and public dollars fund public clinics that charge according to your ability to pay.




Bo, that is pretty much what we had before Obamacare. Public clinics are fine, and they play an important role. But they still do not resolve the issue of catastrophic care for the poor, and they do not address the problems of the indigent elderly.


And the thing that is missing is private insurance for those who work and want to buy it, but can't because they have a chronic condition.


After Obamacare, if Obamacare survives, this problem at least will be resolved. But it cannot be resolved without a mandate, since insurance companies will not want to allow high-cost patients into their risk pools unless they can be guaranteed to retain the low-cost patients.


Which brings us back to the mandate in the OP, and Romney's very sensible defense of it, several etch-a-sketch shakes ago.


Jun 7, 2012 -- 10:17PM, Bodean wrote:


I don't begrudge the rich their better than average healthcare.  I don't support the fleecing of the tax payer with the mixing of public funds with private providers, as we have now.  I've always had a soft spot for the "working poor", who make too much to be on Medicaid, but not enough to afford a policy.




Don't forget the "working middle," some of whom would like to be insured but can't through no fault of their own. I have a soft spot for them too.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 11:48AM #38
Bodean
Posts: 9,204

Jun 8, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Jasr wrote:


 


Bo, that is pretty much what we had before Obamacare. Public clinics are fine, and they play an important role. But they still do not resolve the issue of catastrophic care for the poor, and they do not address the problems of the indigent elderly.




No Jasr .. what I'm talking about is nothing like what we had before Obamacare.


As I've said all along, Public Dollar should not be wasted on "coverage", they should be invested in SERVICE.  It is the main problem that I have with the Left's position on all this.


COVERAGE .. does NOT equal SERVICE.


As I said, my system would leave the private sector alone.  The only difference would be, Private Providers would NOT be allowed to accept Medicare, Medicaid, etc [because they'd no longer exists] ... they would be supported by the Private Insurance Companies.


Since Medicare would go away ... Medicare deductions from paychecks would go to a HSA account that would be used to continue private coverage in the elder years. ... or to pay for visits in the Public System ... your choice.


The "Public System" would not be an "insurance program", outside of payments to contracted specialists to serve the needs of the system.  But rather, would be a beefed up set of clinics, manned by NPs, PAs, and a few Doctors, to maintain basic healthcare, and enphasize preventive health.  As I detailed some time ago, it would operate on a pay by ability system, such that those who "choose" not to have insurance, but could afford it, will pay a full clinic price comparable to the area ... all the way down to paying nothing for the truly indigent.  Thus, your working poor, and working middle class, your very rich who choose no insurance, and your truly indigent would all be covered.  It would be a completely "Socialized System" meant to cater to those in need, or who would choose it.  It would replace Medicaid, and all the Fraud that goes on in it because we mix public dollars with private providers.


I remember running the Medicaid Cost for two separate states.  You could purchase a private policy and pay the deductible for half the cost the state was spending on Medicaid.  It's just a bad system, and everybody knows it.


The perks of the two systems would encourage the best probability for each.  The Private system has doctor choice, and whatever other liberties their insurance company provides.  Just like the top tier policies already in existence.


The public system, there is no doctor choice, your records are on file and you see the first available NP or PA.  They serve as a screen to treat the frivalous and simple fixes, and for maintenence.  Only the difficult cases get forwarded up to the "doctors".  Everyone is on Salary, and huge savings on liability insurance, as you will have to be granted permission to bring a law suit against the system based on merit.  No 1-900 Lawyers ... getting rich off frivilous law suits in the system.


Leftist won't like it, because it does not cater to "equality" .. it caters to Neccessity, and accounts for the privilege that the Rich Folk can buy better than average.  I know, all you leftist will oppose it because you despise the Rich Folk having "better" healthcare than others, even when the other's are getting "adequate" healthcare. .. that's not good enough for the "social justice" mentality.


The Public System I defined is actually full blown socialized medicine, except you pay according to ability.  But that won't be good enough for leftist, because it has no mandate that ALL people participate.  Well .. take a hint from Canada and others ... they are having to allow "private system" to pickup the slack.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 1:52PM #39
Jasr
Posts: 11,045

Bo:


I appreciate that you have really thought this through...I don't agree with all of it but I acknowledge that you are not satisfied with sloganeering.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 08, 2012 - 4:13PM #40
teilhard
Posts: 49,874

And I'M not "satisfied" with the present System that drives MANY Families into Bankruptcy ... I'M not "satisfied" with the present System in which "Health" Care and "Health" Care Insurance is a "Profit Center" for Investors, giving HUGE Inducement to DENY Coverage ...


I would prefer that our "Health" Care Industry would be run as a Public Utility ...


Jun 8, 2012 -- 1:52PM, Jasr wrote:


Bo:


I appreciate that you have really thought this through...I don't agree with all of it but I acknowledge that you are not satisfied with sloganeering.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 4 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook