Health care reform and OSA

[roster]

LET US BE ALLOWED TO AT LEAST BUY OVER STATE LINES. GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT ONE? SCARED I MIGHT GO TO NC TO GET MY INSURANCE? DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT?

Nope, not scared at all. Due to stupid government regulations in NC, the market here is dominated by BCBS. Over 95% of private policies purchased are with BCBS - virtually no competition allowed by our government. BCBS is also a major player in employer-sponsored plans having a market share around 50%.

That is not the way competition works but it is the way government works. You trust the people who created the insurance mess to straighten it out?

BTW, ENJOYING YOUR MEDICARE? GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED HEALTHCARE AND ALL. IS IT WORKING FOR YA? I BET IT IS!

Put your money on the table and I would match it. You would lose that bet, smarty pants, because I don't rely on Medicare and never have.

But I also don't begrudge anyone who uses Medicare and in fact, would advise them to use it if they are eligible.

[roster]

Romans 13: 1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

So the Nazis were Biblicially justified?

You suddenly made a healthcare debate seem like a minor thing.

[Slinky]

Spare me the biblical quotes. There have been more people killed in the name of religion .....

[roster]

There have been more people killed in the name of religion .....

More than what?


Religion
Crusades + Inquisition + witch burnings = 200,000

Atheist groups and governments - The Big Three
Stalin - 20,000,000
Mao - 70,000,000
Hitler - 10,000,000
Total - 100 million

And then there is still the "lesser" atheist groups and governments, like, for instance: Pol Pot, Enver Hoxha, Nicolae Ceausesu, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il.

So over 100 million killed by atheist groups and governments compared to 200,000 in the name of religion.That is a ratio of more than 500 to 1.

Interesting to note that most of the killings in the name of religion were during times of war, while atheist groups and governments tend to kill their own people during times of peace. What's that all about?

[PST]

So the Nazis were Biblicially justified?

Rooster, of course I don't believe any such thing. I'm not even a Christian. I don't care what Romans 13 says.

What bugs me is when people make demonstrably untrue assertions of fact. For example, earlier in this thread, you said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded that cost of the healthcare bill will wreck the country financially. I cited the CBO's actual conclusion, which was that the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years. You changed the subject and responded with what the Heritage Foundation thinks and some of your opinions. Now you claim that the Bible has nothing to say about organizing governments to do the Lord's work, and that's not true either. At least one Biblical passage says all governments are doing God's will. When I pointed this out, you changed the subject and started asking if I think the Nazis were Biblically justified, which strikes me as a terrible belief to attribute to anyone.

I don't mean to be a smart ass. Honestly. I just think that untrue statements of fact tend to make productive discussion impossible. I don't mind conflicting opinions. I agree with SWS. Some of the kindest, best people I know, including family, have political opinions that I completely disagree with. It'll give us something to talk about as we comb the last bit of stuffing out of our mustaches. But facts are different from opinions. If a purported fact that is transparently false is inserted into a discussion, it should be corrected. Judging from your last post, you must agree. We can't all just believe that the facts are what we want them to be. In my opinion that lies at the heart of much of the dispute over healthcare reform. If I actually thought that the bill contained half the provisions that Betsy McCaughey says it contains, I'd be against it too.

[Scents]

In Canada we have a Universal Medicare system - No one here has gone out of business whether it be an internet or Brick & Mortar supplier as the Government system contracts out to the privates businesses.

My sleep Apnea testing, CPAP equipment was covered completely and we are followed up on an annual basis. New Mask, hose, filters are supplied annually through the private contractor (free) and the private business owners have a flourishing business.

It is not socialism, we do have longer waiting periods for procedures than the USA and it is certainly not perfect but I have not put out a dime out of my pocket for many decades for my family. If a medical procedure is deemed urgent we go to the front of the line.....and are treated promptly.

It shocks me that such a wonderful, industrialized, rich and powerful country as the USA does not have universal Health Care. It is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have Universal Health Care.

If I did not have our system I would be fearful of losing my home and assets if I had to pay for health care. Particularly in the event of a serious accident or long term illness.

Did anyone read this post? Here it is black and white. What's the argument? Why do the Americans that oppose this reform not get it? What the hell are they really afraid of? (Oh ya, communism--so stupid).

I get a kick out of "government will have a say in my healthcare". Another moron statement. Don't people realize FOR PROFIT healthcare companies have the only say in their healthcare? Deny coverage all the time.

When are these people going to get their heads out of the sand?

I'm done with this topic. It's like talking to an old rock.

[roster]

What bugs me is when people make demonstrably untrue assertions of fact. For example, earlier in this thread, you said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded that cost of the healthcare bill will wreck the country financially. I cited the CBO's actual conclusion, which was that the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years.

Let’s talk about untrue statements being posted here. This one for instance.

.......Now you claim that the Bible has nothing to say about organizing governments to do the Lord's work, and that's not true either.

It is clear that I did not claim that. Here is what I said.

MY SAVIOR doesn't expect "payment to be received when services are rendered," nor does he deny patients a bed in hospitals who are unable to pay.

Nor did He leave behind a single record in His Holy Book that says you are to organize governments to do His work.

Romans was a letter to the church in Rome written by Paul, not the Savior. Additionally, there were very specific reasons why Paul did not want the church to resist the oppressive government of the time. There are numerous commentaries on this passage from New Testament scholars if you care to read them. In no way does Paul call on the church to organize governments to do His (the Savior’s) work.

Here is another untrue statement.

....... At least one Biblical passage says all governments are doing God's will.

That is not in the text you quoted.

Now as far as this statement,

What bugs me is when people make demonstrably untrue assertions of fact. For example, earlier in this thread, you said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded that cost of the healthcare bill will wreck the country financially. I cited the CBO's actual conclusion, which was that the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years.

You know better than I do that the CBO originally said the bill was a financial wreck (They used their best professional verbiage, not the vernacular I am using. But it all means the same.) Then the bill was changed. It was frontloaded with taxes and backloaded with benefits to create the impression of a reduction in deficit. That is a trick as dirty as what Madoff did.

I worked in a very customer-oriented business for many years. We were successful because we listened to what the customer wanted and delivered it. Our mission was Customer Satisfaction. But we also understood, “If you don’t make the margin, you can’t make the mission.”

I hope every citizen and legal alien has the best medical care readily available when they need it. But this bill is not the way to do it. This bill will do serious damage to the economy with additional taxes, larger bureaucracy, and suppression of innovation in the medical field. We won't be able to make the margin needed to accomplish the mission.

Our federal government has proved it can’t be trusted to run Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AmTrak, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, a stimulus bill, the SEC, and the post office. I sure am not living with a pipe dream that they can manage the whole medical care system.

[Snorebert]

Thank goodness that the AMA, with the assistance of Ronald Reagan, prevailed back in the early sixties. Otherwise we would have that socialized medicine program, Medicare, in place today. That way when the day comes that I retire and can't get any policy to cover my wife, a breast cancer survivor and Lupus sufferer, I will be able to pay cash for healthcare. At least for the first couple of months. Then most likely, we will need to go without coverage so that we can eat.



(from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup)

[PST]

Well you got me on the Bible quotation, Rooster. I didn't realize that you meant only statements by Jesus himself, personally, when you said "Nor did He leave behind a single record in His Holy Book," but reviewing it in context, I accept that this is what you meant. On the other hand, I think the passage pretty clearly says that all governments are doing God's will. Whatever may have been on Paul's mind concerning the events of the day, and whether or not we agree, the quotation seems to be about general truths, not one specific government. He said "the governing authorities … that exist have been instituted by God" and that one who is in authority is "God's servant." In any event, the quotation speaks for itself, so there is no point in arguing about it. I'm heartily sorry I ever dipped into Biblical exegesis. It was taking off topic to extremes. In fact, the forum crashed last night when I first tried to reply and then was down for eight or nine hours, which was probably my fault for broaching the subject.

Turning back to health care:

Now as far as this statement,

What bugs me is when people make demonstrably untrue assertions of fact. For example, earlier in this thread, you said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded that cost of the healthcare bill will wreck the country financially. I cited the CBO's actual conclusion, which was that the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years.

You know better than I do that the CBO originally said the bill was a financial wreck (They used their best professional verbiage, not the vernacular I am using. But it all means the same.) Then the bill was changed. It was frontloaded with taxes and backloaded with benefits to create the impression of a reduction in deficit. That is a trick as dirty as what Madoff did.

I know no such thing. I've heard this doubletalk about frontloading and backloading several times, but I don't understand what it means. Not only does the CBO say that the Senate bill will reduce the 2010-2019 deficit by $130 billion, it says in the same report that it expects the bill to reduce the deficit even more during the next ten years, 2020-2029. Therefore I don't see how the purported savings for 2010-2019 could come from a dirty trick that puts the benefits up front and the cost at the end. The fact that some early versions of the bill were budget busters just means that the proponents reacted to criticism and made their bill better. That's what they're supposed to do. I believe you expressed doubt at one point that a decent piece of legislation could be produced in the time this has been in preparation, but it has been the better part of a year now. That time and effort has yielded an improved bill that is now better than revenue neutral. I believe the CBO, but even if you don't, it should be clear that the CBO is not saying that the bills now before the Senate or the House will wreck the country financially.

[Wulfman]

Well you got me on the Bible quotation, Rooster. I didn't realize that you meant only statements by Jesus himself, personally, when you said "Nor did He leave behind a single record in His Holy Book," but reviewing it in context, I accept that this is what you meant. On the other hand, I think the passage pretty clearly says that all governments are doing God's will. Whatever may have been on Paul's mind concerning the events of the day, and whether or not we agree, the quotation seems to be about general truths, not one specific government. He said "the governing authorities … that exist have been instituted by God" and that one who is in authority is "God's servant." In any event, the quotation speaks for itself, so there is no point in arguing about it. I'm heartily sorry I ever dipped into Biblical exegesis. It was taking off topic to extremes. In fact, the forum crashed last night when I first tried to reply and then was down for eight or nine hours, which was probably my fault for broaching the subject.

Turning back to health care:

Now as far as this statement,

What bugs me is when people make demonstrably untrue assertions of fact. For example, earlier in this thread, you said that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has concluded that cost of the healthcare bill will wreck the country financially. I cited the CBO's actual conclusion, which was that the Senate version will reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the next ten years.

You know better than I do that the CBO originally said the bill was a financial wreck (They used their best professional verbiage, not the vernacular I am using. But it all means the same.) Then the bill was changed. It was frontloaded with taxes and backloaded with benefits to create the impression of a reduction in deficit. That is a trick as dirty as what Madoff did.

I know no such thing. I've heard this doubletalk about frontloading and backloading several times, but I don't understand what it means. Not only does the CBO say that the Senate bill will reduce the 2010-2019 deficit by $130 billion, it says in the same report that it expects the bill to reduce the deficit even more during the next ten years, 2020-2029. Therefore I don't see how the purported savings for 2010-2019 could come from a dirty trick that puts the benefits up front and the cost at the end. The fact that some early versions of the bill were budget busters just means that the proponents reacted to criticism and made their bill better. That's what they're supposed to do. I believe you expressed doubt at one point that a decent piece of legislation could be produced in the time this has been in preparation, but it has been the better part of a year now. That time and effort has yielded an improved bill that is now better than revenue neutral. I believe the CBO, but even if you don't, it should be clear that the CBO is not saying that the bills now before the Senate or the House will wreck the country financially.

What it means is that IF the proposed legislation comes into being, they're going to tax the Hell out of everybody for about 4 or 5 years until the "benefits" finally start to kick in in 2013 (or later).
The other thing is that they "hid" several hundred billion (didn't count it - "took it off the table" - in the figures they gave the CBO) so it would look APPEAR to "save" any money.


Den

[Autopapdude]

Read my related thread. All of the objections are horesfeathers except one: MONEY, MONEY and MONEY. NONE Of them want to pay more taxes. If it were free, you'd see everyone jumping up and down for health care. They dread, fear, and go into a panic over the possibility that their taxes might go up.

[roster]

Thank goodness that the AMA, with the assistance of Ronald Reagan, prevailed back in the early sixties. Otherwise we would have that socialized medicine program, Medicare, in place today. That way when the day comes that I retire and can't get any policy to cover my wife, a breast cancer survivor and Lupus sufferer, I will be able to pay cash for healthcare. At least for the first couple of months. Then most likely, we will need to go without coverage so that we can eat.



(from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Coffee_Cup)

Thank goodness that the AMA, with the assistance of Ronald Reagan, prevailed back in the early sixties. Otherwise we would have that socialized medicine program, Medicare, in place today. That way when the day comes that I retire and can't get any policy to cover my wife, a breast cancer survivor and Lupus sufferer, I will be able to pay cash for healthcare. At least for the first couple of months. Then most likely, we will need to go without coverage so that we can eat.

It would be easier to have a rational argument about the case you present, if you had presented it in a straightforward way and not as sarcasm. Nevertheless, I will assume you are saying you and your wife would be in very bad shape for health insurance in retirement had Medicare not been enacted into law in 1965. Believing that as truth, I can understand you may have fears and look to a government solution for your problem.

However, there is a serious flaw in your thinking that I will address. Think outside this issue for a minute about the improvements in our lives in 2009 compared to 1965 (I know many things have gone downhill, mainly our moral state, but for now let's just concentrate on the improvements). I could not even begin to catalogue all the positive improvements and I certainly don't have a good memory of 1965. Major improvements that come quickly to mind are in the areas of automobiles, medicine, computers, electronics, clothes, houses, heating systems, cookware, gas grills, chain saws, sporting guns, bicycles, athletic stadiums, variety of foods easily available, communication, horse breeding stock, variety and quality of specialized magazines, fishing gear, boats, cartoon strips (Dilbert for one example), air conditioning systems, diesel engines, automobile race tracks, ….. well, you can add to the list as well as I can. You also know as well as I do that these improvements came about without government programs to require them.

Now let us imagine that Medicare had not been enacted in 1965. Let’s say our leaders took a clear, consensus position that it was not the role of the Federal government to provide citizens with health insurance. Let’s say that part of this position was the idea that the market was the proper source of health insurance and that our government was committed to leave the market unregulated except for those normal regulations to prevent fraud and protect the property rights of citizens.

Humans organize businesses to fulfill human needs. I am firmly convinced, given the hypothetical case presented in the previous paragraph, that an insurance system for health care would have been developed by the market. I am also convinced that this insurance system would make insurance widely available, at affordable rates, and in a wide variety. Just like shopping at Dick’s Sporting Goods, Best Buy, and WalMart all on the same evening.

I understand there are plenty of people who would rather rely on the government. But I am not one of them.

But now back to your fears. I really do think you have something to fear given the facts you described. You and I will depend on one insurance policy, Medicare, in our retirement years. If something goes wrong with that policy, there is little to zero other choice. And something is going very badly wrong with Medicare – a subject for a future thread if you care to start it.

[Autopapdude]

I understand there are plenty of people who would rather rely on the government. But I am not one of them.

Of course you don't want to rely on the government. MONEY. Says it all. You don't want them to ask you for money. How about some country where taxes are unnecessary? That sounds more your speed.

[roster]

Read my related thread. All of the objections are horesfeathers except one: MONEY, MONEY and MONEY. NONE Of them want to pay more taxes. If it were free, you'd see everyone jumping up and down for health care. They dread, fear, and go into a panic over the possibility that their taxes might go up.

I am sure you would like to leave money out of the discussion when it is flowing from others pockets to yours.

[Autopapdude]

I am sure you would like to leave money out of the discussion when it is flowing from others pockets to yours.

Truthfully, I am happy for a tax increase to fund national health care for ALL. Yes it will cost more, but it will be something that will benefit ALL, not just some. That is the truth. I'd write the check to the US Treasury this minute.

Moreover, I have excellent health care now. Not everybody does, so that is why I'd happily write it.