|
Forums33
Topics44,170
Posts519,800
Members14,024
| |
Most Online1,931
Jan 16th, 2023
|
|
Administrator/owner:
John (Dragonslayer)
Administrator:
Melinda (mig)
WebAdmin:
Timo (Timo)
Administrator:
Brad (wolverinefan)
Moderators:
· Tim (Dotyisle)
· Chelsea (Kiwi)
· Megan (Megan)
· Wendy (WendyR)
· John (Cheerful)
· Chris (fyrfytr187)
|
|
If you want to use this QR code (Quick Response code) just save the image and paste it where you want. You can even print it and use it that way. Coffee cups, T-Shirts etc would all be good for the QR code.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 21,346 Likes: 2
Very_Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
|
Very_Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 21,346 Likes: 2 |
dow, thanks for the statistics. i've heard and read about so many stories such as lisa's very personal story, but had no idea of the numbers involved. stats can really be an eye opener.
sue
Spondyloarthropathy, HLAB27 negative
Humira (still methylprednisone for flares, just not as often. Aleve if needed, rarely.)
LDN/zanaflex/flector patches over SI/ice
vits C, D. probiotics. hyaluronic acid. CoQ, Mg, Ca, K.
chiro
walk, bike
no dairy (casein sensitivity), limited eggs, limited yeast (bread)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233
Imperial_AS_Kicker
|
|
Imperial_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233 |
Quote:
I really don't see this as a battle between the public (Joe and Jane on the street) and the health care giants. Sure there is a battle going on there. However, I see a mighty struggle between government (public) and big business (private). I also guess I see this as much less of political issue too (i.e. feather in the cap of Obama comment). I think if the bill wasn't so radical, instead enacting measured changes, there wouldn't be as much of a hullabaloo. Looking at it from a partisan view (which seems to be a recurring theme), I laud the Dems for initiating the process. I certainly can get behind the effort to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Enacting other mandates such as eliminating obstacles for those preexisting illnesses, retroactively canceling policies, and likely a few more are also favorable in my opinion. However, I believe much of the bill is too vast at this time and I don't believe their underlying intentions are genuine. I think my opinion could be supported by the fact that the health care reform bill (whether it be H.R. 3200 or the recently passed H.R. 3962) has few co-sponsors given the fact that it is such important legislation. That tells me that either folks in the House don't believe it in, or are afraid to put their name to it fearing that it would be somehow destructive to their political careers. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Agree with you mostly. But I don't equate the government with the public, it's always going to be a three or four part system, the health care providers, the insurance companies, the government, and us, the "clients". Don't see a way to just pass a law that would demand that pre-existing illnesses be covered, prevent retroactiving cancelling policies, etc, wouldn't do the job it would be designed to do, they'd just find new loopholes, raise premiums again, cry "Socialism!", all in a way to protect and even increase their profits. I think the better idea is to create competition, so that people would have a choice, if they do have the option of getting covered for a lower price, that will force the HC industry to respond by lowering their prices, or risk losing their policy-holders and much of their profits altogether
and I do also observe that there are signs that the recently passed bills are not being taken that seriously, getting them also passed in the Senate, is no sure thing (step 2 of 3)
I took a look at some health industry mutual fund prices on the Monday following the passing of H.R. 3962, I figured if that bill was making investors in the industry nervous, we'd see some selling on that day, but no, the prices actually went UP instead
Quote:
The healthcare bill may not be specifically aimed at Veterans, however the first sentence in the bill reads "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans
and reduce the growth in health care spending, and
for other purposes." It occurs to me that Veterans would fall under the "all Americans" umbrella. I'm also left scratching my head if these legislators took time to craft a near 2,000 page document, but found no room or time to address the healthcare of Veterans. Also, I'm all for anything that benefits those who serve or served our country (regarding combating homelessness among veterans). This is somehow shocking though seeing that the President's Homeland Security Secretary issued a memo a while back that all servicemen returning from Iraq and Afghanistan should be suspected of domestic terror activities. Way to marginalize those that serve our country.
DHS Memo
Personally, I think you are interpreting that too far to say that the memo says that "all servicemen returning from Iraq and Afghanistan should be suspected of domestic terror activities." This is likely the relevant quote from it, where they assess that a potential exists:
U//FOUO) DHS/I&A assesses that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and
radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from
military training and combat. These skills and knowledge have the potential to boost the
capabilities of extremists—including lone wolves or small terrorist cells—to carry out
violence. The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.
Quote:
However, neither the initiative of which you speak or this memo have little, if anything, to do with this healthcare reform. I'm not sure why that Congressman brought the subject up if it is a non-issue.
Robert Andrews brought it up because that is one of the rumors floating around, that the health care reform might change the benefits that veterans receive today, to state that it wasn't true, the reform will not affect their benefits unless they choose it
I think we'd agree that at this stage in time, the veterans in this country have earned and do in fact have better health care available to them than the almost 46 million of uninsured people in the US, so I think that's where our primary attention should be, not to say that the veteran's care shouldn't improve. I posted that link just to show that progress is being made for veterans now, even outside of the health care reform bills
Quote:
Regarding the illegal aliens and healthcare. There's a significant difference between a tourist/visitor to this country receiving temporary, ambulatory care versus those that enter the country, taking up permanent residence, expecting free health care and clogging up Emergency Rooms to obtain it. I wouldn't have a problem including the cost of care for tourists in dire need (as I really don't think those who vacation here have intentions of falling ill). Illegal immigrant clearly aren't tourists. I don't know if other citizens share this opinion. There was quite some coverage locally about Grady hospital and what would happen to the illegal immigrants receiving free dialysis care Grady Dialysis. While I don't want to see anyone suffer, there is no reason that these folks can't return to Mexico to get the care they need. The hospital has even offered to return them to Mexico. Personally, what perplexes me is why ICE isn't all over this making sure that they are back in Mexico. Perhaps another government agency failing to adequately execute their mission? Back to health care.
My main point is, that someone from this country visiting another country, such as the UK or Portugal, who falls sick, will receive FREE health care when visiting that country, even though they may not get that in their home country of the U.S., here they'd get stuck with the a bill for an emergency room visit. Remember, our laws here demand that a hospital cannot refuse a person to the emergency room, they still get sent an outrageous bill, which they often have no way of paying, that's where we taxpayers get stung
and that CNN article points out why they don't want to return to Mexico, they claim that the treatment isn't as good there, that it's a "death sentence"
and I know what you are going to say to that, that the reason why the quality of treatment is better here is because it's a for-profit system, so therefore we have better facilities and better doctors...and I agree, no one said this is easy problem to tackle!
I do share your opinion on this basically. The illegal immigrants are an economic problem, they will strain our system, as they do now.
Quote:
Regarding the IRS agents. Yes. They do carry guns. Do all IRS employees. Probably not. I hope the unhelpful old bat I spoke to when the IRS failed to process my payment a few years ago didn't carry. All IRS agents? I don't know. However, my father remarked that the neighbor down the street who works for the IRS and carried a gun. I said, oh, yes, some of these agents do carry firearms. I then relayed a story of my friend's father (who currently owns and has owned multiple small businesses) decided, for a month(?) or whatever period of time, that it was (temporarily) more important to pay his employees than it was to pay the feds. The revenue agent he was required to meet about the issue was armed. Yes, it's true, some of them do a little more than "the paperwork, send out notices of delinquent tax payments, put the ball in motion that can lead to a court date, and due process."
This just didn't make sense to me at first, couldn't figure out why they would do that. As I pondered, normally it's the IRS agent who may report that someone hasn't paid their taxes, they notify the person or business, and if the payment isn't made, a court date is set, and if not resolved, it would be the local sheriff or other branch of law enforcement that makes the arrest, or seizes the assets.
But now I see some scenarios where they might do that, there are times when the IRS has to go to the site, when they are looking for evidence of fraud, to examine the accounting books of a business or individual, and I found links and stories where it is true, some IRS agents do carry guns
So point taken!
Quote:
I'm not worried about that (earning $500,000 or more any time ever) either. However, I do have concerns about not potentially being able to afford health insurance and having some goon show up to apprehend me because of it. That is a huge flaw I see in this healthcare bill. What might be more disturbing is that they now have the power to tell you that you must have health insurance or else.
Agreed there, at least mostly. Except for the severity of the punishment of not paying the penalty for not buying health care, which is designed as an incentive to get everyone to be covered, not as a instrument to scare people. I wish they could do away with that. And there will be a hardship clause, as stated, so that people who can't simply can't afford it at all, would have a way out of it. But we have to have SOME way of paying for it, and I like this idea better than an across-the-board massive tax increase. But, above all else, the most important thing is to use the collective bargaining power of the over 300 million people in this country, to get the health care industry to compete with lower prices!!!
Quote:
Wishing us all good health.
Dow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,461
Silver_AS_Kicker
|
|
Silver_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,461 |
I guess what I'm struggling to understand is why there is a belief that the federal government must offer health insurance to ensure competition. I understand the basic shortcomings of the McCarran-Ferguson Act as it relates to today's situation, the protection it offers the health insurers, and why a good case could be made for it to be repealed. However, once those limitations are removed, insurance policies can be offered on a national level/across state lines. This alone will increase competition. Also, I tend to disagree that legislation couldn't be passed mandating that pre-existing illness be covered, etc. There is nothing preventing the legislators from attempting to pass legislation that would severely constrain the insurers. That alone may put some insurers out of business. Might give rise to other competitors too. Not passing this particular bill wouldn't mean the end of insurance regulation. It would be up to the federal government to hold the insurers' feet to the fire. No loopholes, no unlimited premiums, etc. It might be like the airline industry before deregulation where the government basically dictated cities carriers could service, routes the could fly, etc. Once that industry was deregulated, competition increased. Thus the (airline) carriers were forced to compete on service and price. Same thing would happen in the insurance industry. I guess I'm advocating that a little needs to be taken out of here and a little more added elsewhere.
Having the federal government offer health insurance and acting as a competitor is akin to the fox guarding the hen house in my opinion. They will change the rules to suit them until they eliminate all competition. Then all choices are gone and they are the only provider and can provide whatever level of service they see fit.
Additionally, the federal government has had the opportunity to try and repeal this law. Why haven't they? They've seen fit for six decades to sit on their hands and do nothing. Now many are ecstatic about the same “do-nothing for the citizens” entity administering their health care. Perplexing.
Kind Regards,
Jay
Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233
Imperial_AS_Kicker
|
|
Imperial_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233 |
Hi Jaybird: I've been trying to "answer" your questions in my mind, all week, did come up with a few responses, that made some sense... ...when looked at in a certain light, but they kind of fell apart in other lights so I guess it's time to just say, they are darn good questions 
Dow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,461
Silver_AS_Kicker
|
|
Silver_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,461 |
Another piece of cud I've been chewing on for the past week or so... Why not implement a federal sales tax on all goods (tax everything, including food, clothing, and other necessities) of up to 1%, so that everybody can help bear the burden of the cost of universal health care? I previously said that a payroll tax would be better than a tax on individuals, and I still think that for the most part, but I wonder if this is a more effective way of paying for universal health care. I don't see it proper than any one group (e.g. wealthy...and, no, I'm nowhere near wealthy or will never see anything close to great wealth in my life unless I hit the lottery) should bear the majority of financial burden to subsidize health care for the entire country. Under a national sales tax, everybody contributes. Makes me wonder how popular an idea universal health care would be if this were proposed. I haven't seen this proposed, but I don't follow this as closely as I should, therefore I might have missed such a proposal. I shudder to think of the prospect of any new tax, but this sales tax would apply to the person buying the fancy $250,000 car as it would the person buying the $250 electronics item as it would hit the person buying the $2.50 grocery item. It would also be applicable to tourists to this country so there would be no worry about them having to pay a bill for health care should they require it while traveling here. It will be interesting to see what twists and turns this debate takes after Thanksgiving. Personally, I think the do-nothings should be working in D.C. through Wednesday instead of going home and already start their holiday. Hopefully they will a lot of time (and receive earfuls of feedback) from some of their constituents. Also, a new war tax is brewing. Another tax to potentially go along with the health care tax on income. Share The Sacrafice Act of 2010 The quotes say that it has little chance of passing, but why not include this in a national sales tax instead of an income tax (like health care) so that nearly everyone can share the burden of the cost of war as the news clip states is the bill's ultimate purpose? I mean over 30% of tax returns filed have a zero or negative income tax liability, therefore perhaps this should be rolled under the national sales tax too. Income tax burden could be reduced and those dollars could funnel back into the economy to help stimulate things we need...like jobs. There's a fat chance of any income tax reduction though with the piggies in Washington. Shame on them, however, for attempting to implement a new tax using our servicemen/women as scapegoats to fill their greedy pockets. Defense is already budgeted for and funded through income tax receipts. Yes, it may be adding to the debt, but that expenditure (not defense per se, but what is budgeted for war -- hurts to say that) will disappear once it is determined that we have no obligation in that part of the world. Also, I wonder how quickly, of if, a tax would be repealed once those obligations are fulfilled.
Kind Regards,
Jay
Almost all of us long for peace and freedom; but very few of us have much enthusiasm for the thoughts, feelings, and actions that make for peace and freedom. - Aldous Huxley
Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now. - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,483
Silver_AS_Kicker
|
|
Silver_AS_Kicker
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,483 |
II would love to see some serious Tax reforms and a true pay as you go plan implemented as the democrats have proposed and the republicans opposed.
We need to know things cost real money in this country. How many would have supported the IRAQ war had they been told the national sales tax will go up 5% to pay for it while the war is in progress? would the medicare drug plan had been passed if the income taxes were to rise by 4% to cover the new costs? Would the tax cuts have gone through if people new x y and Z program would be eliminated as part of the package.
Seems our government in the past has ignored the true costs of things and just cut taxes and implemented new programs as if they were all free. I do like that at least this new health care plan has the taxes and cuts all spelled out in it. That may be a first for the US congress over the last 40 years frankly. At least we had war bonds during WW2.
No families take so little medicine as those of doctors, except those of apothecaries.
Oliver Wendell Holmes
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233
Imperial_AS_Kicker
|
|
Imperial_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233 |
[quote=drizzit]How many would have supported the IRAQ war had they been told the national sales tax will go up 5% to pay for it while the war is in progress?[/quote]
One of the ways they pulled that off, was to not make the war in Iraq part of the US budget, it was always an emergency funding measure, that's why Bush repeatedly went in front of Congress each time to get more money, they hold the purse strings
The administration smartly knew that if they had made it part of the military budget each time, then it would have met with much more resistance
Obama puts it in the yearly budget, on the other hand, so it's more visible now
Dow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233
Imperial_AS_Kicker
|
|
Imperial_AS_Kicker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,233 |
Why not implement a federal sales tax on all goods (tax everything, including food, clothing, and other necessities) of up to 1%, so that everybody can help bear the burden of the cost of universal health care? A federal tax, hmm. In addition to what the individual states collect? (There currently isn't a federal sales tax on goods and services, except as I understand it for things like gasoline) I previously said that a payroll tax would be better than a tax on individuals, and I still think that for the most part, but I wonder if this is a more effective way of paying for universal health care. I don't see it proper than any one group (e.g. wealthy...and, no, I'm nowhere near wealthy or will never see anything close to great wealth in my life unless I hit the lottery) should bear the majority of financial burden to subsidize health care for the entire country. Under a national sales tax, everybody contributes. I don't think this would fly very well. If it's not adjusted for income, it would end up being more of a burden to poor people than the wealthy- that same dollar in taxation that a poor person would pay for buying a food or a TV set, would be a larger percentage of their income and then there's the effect that raising the price of goods & services would have on reducing our economy, higher prices means less purchases, when times are tough, people hold on to what money they have, part of the justification for the various stimulus packages, to get the money flowing again One of the rationales behind the health care reform is that it is NOT supposed to actually end up costing more money in the long run, that the increase in productivity from having people be healthier, reducing costs by collectively bargaining with the health care companies, decreasing the costs of goods & services by lowering what both individuals and companies spend on HC, and thus compete better globally. I know we all have doubts about that, especially as the HC companies re-direct their attention from their first goal of stopping any reform outright, to now concentrating on using their influence to weaken the proposals... It will be interesting to see what twists and turns this debate takes after Thanksgiving. Personally, I think the do-nothings should be working in D.C. through Wednesday instead of going home and already start their holiday. Hopefully they will a lot of time (and receive earfuls of feedback) from some of their constituents. right now, a strategy to reduce the impact of HC reform, is just to cause delays, using any means possible, in the hope that it will weaken it, more compromises will be made so that the people who are for it will negotiate, just so that they can get SOMETHING passed, because to not do so, would make them look like failures, reduce their chances for re-election in 2010...
Dow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,928 Likes: 3
Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
|
|
Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 6,928 Likes: 3 |
This has been amazing to "try" to follow the original topic. LOL I love how it has been like the waves in the ocean; ups and downs and always changing.
I have my own thoughts; the original H1N1 flu vaccines not given to anyone over 64 (has been released now and I got mine), changing the ages of pap smears and mammeograms and the time in between. Seems to be the beginning of what to me is bad medicine. I hate to think what is ahead when these changes happened so quickly.
So for what it's worth...... :o)
Possi
![[Linked Image]](https://www.kickas.org/images/flowers/Smilingsun.gif) Possi ********************************************************* RUN WHEN YOU CAN, WALK IF YOU HAVE TO, CRAWL IF YOU MUST, JUST NEVER EVER GIVE UP! "A FRIEND HEARS THE SONG IN YOUR HEART AND SINGS IT TO YOU WHEN YOU CAN'T REMEMBER THE WORDS." "A FRIEND LOOKS THROUGH YOUR BROKEN FENCE TO ADMIRE YOUR FLOWERS."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 21,346 Likes: 2
Very_Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
|
|
Very_Addicted_to_AS_Kickin
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 21,346 Likes: 2 |
i just read yesterday about the changes to pap smears and mammograms and posted my thoughts about that in the women's forum yesterday. to me it is a step backwards for women's health, JMO. i'd always been told that the good thing about the yearly exams is that if something is missed one year, a chance to catch it the next. and not all of us have had the vaccine. already things like bone scans to catch osteoporosis are way to late; i had to fight for mine to be done in my late 30s and when it was i had pretty significant osteopenia, had to talk to 3 doctors before one realized i needed one due to my own personal medical history. sounds like instead of being more proactive regarding preventative medicine, these new guidelines for pap smears and mammograms is a step in the wrong direction. i understand the logic behind it, just don't agree with it.
sue
Spondyloarthropathy, HLAB27 negative
Humira (still methylprednisone for flares, just not as often. Aleve if needed, rarely.)
LDN/zanaflex/flector patches over SI/ice
vits C, D. probiotics. hyaluronic acid. CoQ, Mg, Ca, K.
chiro
walk, bike
no dairy (casein sensitivity), limited eggs, limited yeast (bread)
|
|
|
|
2 members (haydenk, 1 invisible),
133
guests, and
83
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
