Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Wow man. Just, wow.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
Wow man. Just, wow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
but no one called you a nazi. i heard that the king o' conservatives called obama a nazi. Also can someone explain why it is ok for republican windbags to shout down people at health care meetings, but it is not ok for union members to show up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
also, what exactly does it mean to not want to pay for insurance for kids. do you want to deny kids medical care if their parents don't have insurance. Do you want the kids to pay off the debt when they grow up? how does that work? how much should kids be punished for having poor parents?
I think the parents should get a 2nd job. Or 3rd.
That doesn't really answer the question of why the children should suffer if their parents don't get a second or third job (or even if they did get a second job, but still couldn't afford health care). I understand not wanting to pay for healthcare for adults, but kids shouldn't be held accountable for having poor or irresponsible parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermy
I agree with that, but the parents should have to pay regardless. They have to make them go to school, they have to pay if they are found guilty of inflicting damages to someone, they should have to pay for the healthcare.
If an 11 year old breaks his arm, fix his arm, but the liability remains on his folks.
This assumes that parents would always take their kids to doctors if they are sick/hurt. However, it is quite likely that parents would delay or not seek medical care if they knew they would have to pay later (especially at the ridiculous rates charged to the uninsured). How many kids would have to die because their parents delayed treatment before you changed your mind. Again, kids don't choose their parents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermy
Also, hospitals charge less to the insured because they know the insurance companies would never pay the full amount. Thus parents of the uninsured would actually be subsidizing wealthier insured kids because their bills would be larger for the same procedures.
I don't think that wealthy parents kids should be automatically insured (i.e. I think there should be salary ceiling for kids insurance). However, I think the US should have minimal standards of coverage for all children to ensure a minimal amount of equity.
I wouldn't call you a nazi. While I disagree with you I don't have a problem with people not wanting to help out dead beats. Problem is that some of them are dead beats because of bad choices or being lazy but many are not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahoe
My dad got sent back to school to get a better degree by his work. Not long after they let him go because he had 30 years of service and they could hire a new grad cheaper. He happened to have found a job, but plenty of people cannot. Do you blame those people? You can't paint a broad brush over all that are non-insured or underinsured as dead beats.
I'm not sure how true this is, but in the movie Sicko...the citizens in European countries talked about how they have universal health care and they pay less in taxes than we do.
We're a long way from that, but paying for "dead beats" can reduce your out of pocket costs because it reduces their drain on the system. it costs less to be proactive (get and stay healthy) than to have people going to the ER all the time. It costs everyone less to pay for antibiotics for someone to treat a minor illness than to have that person not be able to afford them and eventually get pneumonia or something.
First paragraph-Come now. That's a pretty isolated deal there. Should I buy them a car so they can get to the hospital faster? That would play a much, much larger role in saving kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by xanadu
In the 2nd example I have no problem with regulating costs, make them charge private the same as insured, that's fair. You can always call your medical provider and negotiate, I've done that several times.
And in the 3rd paragraph I'll just disagree.
As your attorney, I must advise against using the "I don't want my tax dollars doing things I disagree with" argument in front of liberals.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to bail out Goldman Sachs and AIG.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to start a war in Iraq.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to fund stupid DoD fantasy projects.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to fund abstinence programs.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to church-run charities.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to fund fascist paramilitary parties in Latin America during the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to bail out the Savings and Loans.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to pay for investigations of whether or not a soldier might be gay - and then training his replacement.
I didn't want my tax dollars going to plan Israel's fireworks parties in Shitsburgh, West Bank.
But the minute they try to do something to actually fucking HELP someone, Tahoe gets his Irish up and decides that something must be done!