|
Hts121
|
^^The House Bill is certainly not perfect. To Liberals, it is too weak. To conservatives, it is too comprehensive.
The House Bill will not pass in the Senate. However, the final bill will have some form of a fine. The rationale for the fine is that there are too many people in this Country who would rather drive a car they can't afford than buy healthcare insurance for their family. The line must be carefully drawn so that those who can't afford insurance get a waiver, but those who can afford insurance (but chose to spend money elsewhere) are penalized.
|
|
|
|
Hootenany
|
Why they couldn't simply pass legislation aimed exclusively at reducing the existing cost structure and providing increased availability rather than ramming this complicated bill that will force people - who already can't afford it - to pay for health insurance is beyond me.
How do you reduce costs and increase availability? You reduce quality and that's something a lot of Americans are not willing to do. You can't force insurance companies to cover everything and expect costs to go down... that's not how it works. I do agree with most of what you said though. I really don't like these massive comprehensive bills. Can't we piece this thing up a little bit to get certain things going such as electronic medical records, tort reform, making insurance portable, etc? Then spend the money you would be spending on this bill on expanded Medicare coverage. There is no simple solution. The only "simple" solution is single payer and that would have a slew of problems as well.
|
|
|
|
DanB
|
The line must be carefully drawn so that those who can't afford insurance get a waiver, but those who can afford insurance (but chose to spend money elsewhere) are penalized.
The government has never been able to enforce such things with other entitlement packages, such as welfare, why do you think it could be done with health insurance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
shs96
|
Why they couldn't simply pass legislation aimed exclusively at reducing the existing cost structure and providing increased availability rather than ramming this complicated bill that will force people - who already can't afford it - to pay for health insurance is beyond me.
How do you reduce costs and increase availability?
There is a lot of waste and fraud in the system. Simply removing that would reduce costs immensely. Not sure if anyone saw the 60 Minutes report about Medicare fraud a few weeks back...there were people simply starting companies to file false claims, collect money, and by the time Medicare figured it out, the company was long gone....like something out of Fight Club. Increasing availabilty doesn't necessarily mean increased cost...I'm not saying people shouldn't pay for insurance. Personally, I think it should be priced like any other insurance. Bad driving record, higher car insurance. Smoker, higher life insurance. I really don't think health insurance should be any different. If you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, you should be charged for your cost to society. That's the real way to control costs - make people pay for their decisions or incent them to make different decisions that aren't as costly. I find it rather backwards that people should be allowed to smoke, eat their face off, become checmically dependent, etc and not take any accountability for their choices. Then the remaining pre-existing conditions that aren't a result of bad personal choices...well the cost basis and demand for healthcare would be lower because more people are either paying for or doing their part to keep costs down...so it wouldn't be as unmanagable or require quality of care to go down.
|
|
|
|
Hts121
|
The line must be carefully drawn so that those who can't afford insurance get a waiver, but those who can afford insurance (but chose to spend money elsewhere) are penalized.
The government has never been able to enforce such things with other entitlement packages, such as welfare, why do you think it could be done with health insurance?
Americans can do anything - Gov. Bobby Jindhal
|
|
|
|
MyTwoSense
|
The line must be carefully drawn so that those who can't afford insurance get a waiver, but those who can afford insurance (but chose to spend money elsewhere) are penalized.
The government has never been able to enforce such things with other entitlement packages, such as welfare, why do you think it could be done with health insurance?
Americans can do anything - Gov. Bobby Jindhal
That Robot! If LA residents relect him, another hurrican should come through and destroy not only NoLa (Punch...let this be a warning..he he he he) but the entire state. And take out part of 'bama and mi'sippi while its down there.
|
|
|
|
shs96
|
I don't think we as a nation should get hysterical about this guy just because he wasn't white and didn't have the courtesy to reference God in English. He goes in the same bin as the old man who assaulted the Holocaust Museum until proven otherwise.
I hope this proves otherwise http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/suspected-ft-hood-shooter-gave-warnings/story?id=9043497Hasan Warned Army of "Adverse Events" if Muslims Not Released
Suspected Shooter Described "Religious Conflicts that Muslims May Have with Current Wars"
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 10, 2009
In a 50-page power point presentation to fellow Army doctors in 2007, Nidal Malik Hasan said the military should give Muslim soldiers the option not to fight to "decrease adverse events."
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation, obtained by the Washington Post. Even if Hasan isn't affiliated with any other group (although there are signs he may have been) it still doesn't change the fact that this was a terrorist act as opposed to just some random nut killing people. Anytime you have political motivation, that immediately escalates you to "Terrorist"...and I hope Obama starts treating this situation accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Grumpy
|
I don't think we as a nation should get hysterical about this guy just because he wasn't white and didn't have the courtesy to reference God in English. He goes in the same bin as the old man who assaulted the Holocaust Museum until proven otherwise.
I hope this proves otherwise
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/suspected-ft-hood-shooter-gave-warnings/story?id=9043497
Hasan Warned Army of "Adverse Events" if Muslims Not Released
Suspected Shooter Described "Religious Conflicts that Muslims May Have with Current Wars"
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 10, 2009
In a 50-page power point presentation to fellow Army doctors in 2007, Nidal Malik Hasan said the military should give Muslim soldiers the option not to fight to "decrease adverse events."
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation, obtained by the Washington Post.
Even if Hasan isn't affiliated with any other group (although there are signs he may have been) it still doesn't change the fact that this was a terrorist act as opposed to just some random nut killing people. Anytime you have political motivation, that immediately escalates you to "Terrorist"...and I hope Obama starts treating this situation accordingly.
How exactly should the situation be treated differently if it is a terrorist situation vs just some nut job going off? They're still going to investigate and charge him with murder, and assuming he's convicted, try to put him on death row. I don't see how his motivation plays a significant role.
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
A random nut does not a terrorist make. Not in any way that justifies all the right wing chest beating and fear mongering. This guy is no more a terrorist than he is a deeply religious man; he merely--and tragically--employed the vernacular of religion and terrorism to carry out his sociopathic urges.
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
I don't think we as a nation should get hysterical about this guy just because he wasn't white and didn't have the courtesy to reference God in English. He goes in the same bin as the old man who assaulted the Holocaust Museum until proven otherwise.
I hope this proves otherwise
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/suspected-ft-hood-shooter-gave-warnings/story?id=9043497
Hasan Warned Army of "Adverse Events" if Muslims Not Released
Suspected Shooter Described "Religious Conflicts that Muslims May Have with Current Wars"
By RHONDA SCHWARTZ and BRIAN ROSS
Nov. 10, 2009
In a 50-page power point presentation to fellow Army doctors in 2007, Nidal Malik Hasan said the military should give Muslim soldiers the option not to fight to "decrease adverse events."
"It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that constantly engaged against fellow Muslims," Hasan said in the presentation, obtained by the Washington Post.
Even if Hasan isn't affiliated with any other group (although there are signs he may have been) it still doesn't change the fact that this was a terrorist act as opposed to just some random nut killing people. Anytime you have political motivation, that immediately escalates you to "Terrorist"...and I hope Obama starts treating this situation accordingly.
How exactly should the situation be treated differently if it is a terrorist situation vs just some nut job going off? They're still going to investigate and charge him with murder, and assuming he's convicted, try to put him on death row. I don't see how his motivation plays a significant role.
Why? because his motivation was jihad, a diabolical force embraced by millions that has resulted in the deaths of thousands (millions?) around the world, that's why. Most individuals who do this are psychotic nutcases acting as individuals. I don't know that the punishment for either motive should be different, but bear in mind that there are many, many more "Hasans" out there who are willing to to carry out the same kind of brutal, cold-blooded attacks on any one of us. It's appalling that our own armed forces have become so sodden with political correctness that even after it became obvious that this guy was an enemy of the United States they did nothing to stop him! Let's get our act together as a nation before this happens again.
|
|
|
|
Hts121
|
A random nut does not a terrorist make.
A random nut, no.... but a muslim nut, apparently yes.
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
A random nut does not a terrorist make.
A random nut, no.... but a muslim nut, apparently yes.
Nuance is not your strong suit, is it?
|
|
|
|
diaspora
|
Why? because his motivation was jihad, a diabolical force embraced by millions that has resulted in the deaths of thousands (millions?) around the world, that's why. Most individuals who do this are psychotic nutcases acting as individuals. I don't know that the punishment for either motive should be different, but bear in mind that there are many, many more "Hasans" out there who are willing to to carry out the same kind of brutal, cold-blooded attacks on any one of us. It's appalling that our own armed forces have become so sodden with political correctness that even after it became obvious that this guy was an enemy of the United States they did nothing to stop him! Let's get our act together as a nation before this happens again.
It wasn't political correctness that kept him in the military.
|
|
|
|
Boreas
|
...I don't know that the punishment for either motive should be different, but bear in mind that there are many, many more "Hasans" out there who are willing to to carry out the same kind of brutal, cold-blooded attacks on any one of us. It's appalling that our own armed forces have become so sodden with political correctness that even after it became obvious that this guy was an enemy of the United States they did nothing to stop him! Let's get our act together as a nation before this happens again. ...
I saw this PBS show last month that said the way to forestall coronary disease and early mortality is to live a "serene" life. Avoiid stress when you can. That's the only nice thing I can say in response, Don
|
|
|
|
mrnyc
|
that abcnews article is more editorializing than news reporting. the slant is not so surprising if you look at the religious agenda of the people who wrote it.
let's give the military a chance to investigate. the only thing we can be certain of is they're well aware they need to do a better job in dealing with obviously unstable people.
|
|
|
|
shs96
|
If you support the public option recenly passed in the House Bill, I suggest you read the bill.
No costs are reduced by simply "providing health insurance to the uninsured". Someone is paying for it. I find it rather backwards that people should be allowed to smoke, eat their face off, become checmically dependent, etc and not take any accountability for their choices.
Then the remaining pre-existing conditions that aren't a result of bad personal choices...well the cost basis and demand for healthcare would be lower because more people are either paying for or doing their part to keep costs down...so it wouldn't be as unmanagable or require quality of care to go down.
Looks like the Chief of one of the best hospitals in the world agrees with me. http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_clinic_health_reform.htmlCleveland Clinic chief Toby Cosgrove says health reform proposals fail to reduce costs
By Sarah Jane Tribble, The Plain Dealer
November 10, 2009, 4:00PM
Cleveland Clinic President and CEO Toby Cosgrove says the health reform proposals before Congress are flawed because they won't do enough to reduce costs.
The House bill passed last weekend and two Senate proposals fail to make the health system more efficient, and do not do enough to help Americans get healthy, Cosgrove said during a speech at Jones Day law firm in downtown Cleveland Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
shs96
|
A random nut does not a terrorist make.
A random nut, no.... but a muslim nut, apparently yes.
No, one who killed American soldiers out of political motivation - to prevent them from killing other Muslims - who are also, in the case of Al Queda, Terrorists (unless you don't think Al Queda are terrorists either). If Anothy Sowell happened to be Muslim, the raping and killing all those women is not an act of terrorism as there is no political motivation. This has clear political motives. He killed American soldiers shouting in Islamic. He warned the Army about it. He was influenced by the same Imam who preached to two of the terrorists resposible for 9/11. He gave presentations to the government saying "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims. Muslim soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly." I'm not sure what any of you doubters think a terrorist is, if it's not this. In fact, I'd like to hear your definition of "terrorist" and why this act doesn't fit that definition. It seems more like a blind faith to defend Obama at all costs. God forbid Obama take any accoutability for anything, let alone for inadequate security against a Islamic Jihadist attack on a military base after spending the past 10 months apologizing to Muslims and undermining the ability of our intellegence agencies to do their jobs. Don't like the ABC link? Try this one: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33819877/ns/us_news-washington_post/Under the "Conclusions" page, Hasan wrote that "Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam," and that "Muslim Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly — will vary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loretto
|
Obama is accountable only so far as he's the "Command in Chief" so the buck has to stop there. But this is clearly a military failure that stretches into both the Obama and Bush terms. If you want to link me to the story that has Obama appointees changing policy to affect the security at military installations or for the military medical staff to not report what is now viewed as highly suspicious behavior I'd love to see that. But from the reports I've read our two smoking guns of evidence date back to 2007 and 2008, and I'm not about to pin it on Bush.
It really just seems you're upset that America isn't engaged in a Counter-Jihad. Did you have a problem with Bush's "Hearts and Minds" policies? It's hardly different than Obama making a speech. He just benefits from the "Not Bush" factor again. Bush said a lot of nice cozy things about Muslims too, just they didn't care.
|
|
|
|
Boreas
|
..well the cost basis and demand for healthcare would be lower because more people are either paying for or doing their part to keep costs down...so it wouldn't be as unmanagable or require quality of care to go down.
Looks like the Chief of one of the best hospitals in the world agrees with me. http://www.cleveland.com/healthfit/index.ssf/2009/11/cleveland_clinic_health_reform.htmlBut, Jacobs (at Mayo) added, "We will never really bend this cost curve" as long as the health system's payment structure remains unchanged. [/quote] That's why we need a single payer system to eliminate the wasted bureaucracy of "insurance companies" (trying to get out of paying claims)
|
|
|
|
Hootenany
|
^Only to be replaced by the wasted bureaucracy of the federal government. Single payer is probably going to be the final solution to this mess in 20 or 30 years, but if you think it won't be just as wasteful and inefficient as the current system you're kidding yourself. In a single payer system you aren't going to have the right to have whatever procedure you want. Someone will need to determine if the benefit of a procedure is justified by the cost. In effect the government would be "trying to get out of paying claims" as well. The big benefit is that everyone will have equal access to healthcare.
|
|
|
|
Grumpy
|
^Does Medicare or the VA currently try to "get out of paying claims"? I'd say that to some degree they do, but the attempt is to get out of paying the erroneous, unneeded, and fraudulent claims. I'm sure they make a lot of mistakes, but that's natural. I would assume that under a single payer system a similar amount of mistakes would be made.
|
|
|
|
kingfish out of water
|
Fraud control. Torte reform. Electronic records. All of these are components of potential cost savings, but none on their own are the be all/end all. The insurance industry is the big winner with this health care bill, but thanks to the clamp-down on pre-existing condition restrictions and denial of coverage rules, the American public is a close second. Frankly, single-payer is the only real way to control costs long term; when one entity is signing all the checks, the playing field--and costs--will level out. But until Americans consistently elect and retain representatives who hold that health care is neither leverage nor luxury but a right, single payer is only a distant possibility.
|
|
|
|
Hts121
|
In a single payer system you aren't going to have the right to have whatever procedure you want. Someone will need to determine if the benefit of a procedure is justified by the cost.
How is that any different than the current system in which private, for-profit insurance companies decide (sometimes arbitrarily) whether to cover a procedure?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hootenany
|
In a single payer system you aren't going to have the right to have whatever procedure you want. Someone will need to determine if the benefit of a procedure is justified by the cost.
How is that any different than the current system in which private, for-profit insurance companies decide (sometimes arbitrarily) whether to cover a procedure?
That's my point... there's little difference aside from the motive that KOW pointed out. I'm just trying to point out that a single payer system wouldn't create some kind of healthcare utopia. The problems would be largely the same.
|
|
|
|
eastvillagedon
|
A random nut does not a terrorist make. Not in any way that justifies all the right wing chest beating and fear mongering. This guy is no more a terrorist than he is a deeply religious man; he merely--and tragically--employed the vernacular of religion and terrorism to carry out his sociopathic urges.
okay, let's all take a deep breath and stop jumping to conclusions! okay? http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/11/12/texas.fort.hood.hasan/Classmates: Hasan defended suicide bombings, held Islamist viewsNovember 12, 2009 5:44 p.m. EST Fort Hood, Texas (CNN) -- Those who knew Nidal Malik Hasan before he was a major in the Army -- and the suspect in last week's mass killing at Fort Hood -- say he was long known for militant Islamist views.
Doctors who crossed paths with Hasan in medical programs paint a picture of a subpar student who wore his religious views on his sleeve.
Several doctors who knew Hasan spoke to CNN, but only on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation of the shooting, which left 12 soldiers and one civilian dead and dozens of other people wounded.
Hasan, an Army psychiatrist who faces 13 counts of premeditated murder, "was clearly espousing Islamist ideology" during his time as a medical student at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland, one of his former classmates told CNN.
Hasan's family has revealed little about him, saying in media interviews that Hasan was a "good American" and a lifelong Muslim who complained he was harassed in the Army because of his religion.
His former classmates describe a much more militant Hasan.
His presentations for school were often laced with extremist Muslim views, one source said.
"Is your allegiance to Sharia law or the United States?" students once challenged Hasan, the source said.
"Sharia law," Hasan responded, according to the source.
|
|
|
|
Boreas
|
If Nidal Hasan wanted out, he could have told the Army he was gay. The Army would have "granted" his request.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Loretto
|
If true, this is the Florida Flight School all over again. Unfricking believable.
|
|
|
|
Poll
