Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

I wonder how Nancy and Barak are going to get along the next two years if she leads the liberal Dems and he is after the GOP mods.

[franalexes]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Good luck in your bid for House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi. You're a fantastic creator of jobs for republicans.

For this reason, I hope she gets it.

[smc]

It's unfortunate that the thread is again reverting to a discussion that is not about the issues. We were doing so well for a brief while.

[Tread]

If I'm not on Cobra, then the law is that if you go to a physician, or a hospital for emergency treatment, and you do indeed, have an emergency, they are required by law to treat you until you are stable and can either be discharged or transferred to another facility, such as a state owned hospital. This is regardless of whether or not you have insurance.

Am I getting this right? Everyone is paying with their taxes for people who are not insured and need an emergency treatment. You don?t want to pay others regular treatment with a new healthcare program, but want to keep the old system where you pay in an emergency.
Usually it is cheaper to maintain something than wait until a constructive total loss and than try to fix it.

What are the advantages in your old health care system? Or what I don?t get or get wrong?
it is by far the most expensive one,
your treatment quality is comparable to other high developed countries,
if you or your company can?t pay the insurance anymore, you only get treated in an absolute emergency,
the ones who are not insured are screwed and/or weight the tax payer, too,
your insurance companies decide how much you have to pay or even can refuse you,
it is bureaucratic to make the different accounts and to decide who gets what, because of your different insurance systems/emergency cases.
You can decide to not have an insurance, spent your money otherwise, and if you really need help the tax payer have to pay your treatment.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Since you begin this stating that humans have abused themselves, I assume when you say I need an expensive operation you're talking about an operation for a self inflicted condition. I have read a lot about exactly how to avoid that kind of thing and live a healthy life. If I am in this predicament it means I have not followed it well, so I would be really pissed. I would wish I could go back and do better.

There is no way to avoid that, you can only lower or raise the risk to something. You can get fat and lazy without any problems, or can stay fit as Bruce Lee and die however.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Tread

Am I getting this right? Everyone is paying with their taxes for people who are not insured and need an emergency treatment. You don?t want to pay others regular treatment with a new healthcare program, but want to keep the old system where you pay in an emergency.
Usually it is cheaper to maintain something than wait until a constructive total loss and than try to fix it.

Once Obama care is fully implemented my health insurance payments go up to around $1000 or more a year. Plus it adds another $trillion to our debt. This is less expensive how? Rather than the government paying for everyone's health maintenance costs in addition to emergency care, why not do something smarter like outlawing high-fructose sugar? As the use of this sugar spread throughout the US obesity has also spread in exactly the same way. You get rid of this sugar and you greatly decrease all the problems that come with obesity, like heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, etc. 1/3 of the people in this country are now obese, and it is still climbing. It used to be that 1-2% of children were obese. Now it's 13%! People would be healthier and feel better. Isn't that a lot cheaper?

There is no way to avoid that, you can only lower or raise the risk to something. You can get fat and lazy without any problems, or can stay fit as Bruce Lee and die however.

Yes that's true but I'm not as quick to throw out statistics as you are.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Plus it adds another $trillion to our debt.

It's okay to have any opinion of the healthcare plan and expresss that opinion, but none of us in the discussion should be entitled to our own facts. The non-partisan Congresssional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $940 billion in the first 10 years but would also reduce the deficit by $138 billion over the same ten years.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

It's unfortunate that the thread is again reverting to a discussion that is not about the issues. We were doing so well for a brief while.

You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

I don't understand this endless hatred of Pelosi.
I have heard her talk about issues, she is intelligent and articulate.
I think the conservatives are just jealous that they can't come up with some one with equal intelligence to represent them.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

I don't understand this endless hatred of Pelosi.
I have heard her talk about issues, she is intelligent and articulate.
I think the conservatives are just jealous that they can't come up with some one with equal intelligece to represent them.

LOL good one. For those who don't get the joke though Pelosi is notorious for shutting out republicans from back door meetings and cramming bills through congress that involve 1/6 of the country's economy while the majority of Americans were telling her and congress to STOP! This was a huge breach of trust with the American people and resulted in the biggest routing of Congress in a election in over 50 years.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

LOL good one. For those who don't get the joke though Pelosi is notorious for shutting out republicans from back door meetings and cramming bills through congress that involve 1/6 of the country's economy while the majority of Americans were telling her and congress to STOP! This was a huge breach of trust with the American people and resulted in the biggest routing of Congress in a election in over 50 years.

Is her politicking any different from what both party leaders have been doing forever?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

You mean about Pelosi? The liberal free for all has her name written all over it.

Discourse about issues can be productive, and perhaps even lead to solving problems. Discourse about people involved in those issues is usually counterproductive, especially if it is in the form of invective, or name calling, or blame -- unless the objective is for the individual who engages in it to feel better about himself or herself. At least that's my observation over the course of my life, and I've rarely found anyone who can mount a convincing argument to the contrary.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Discourse about issues can be productive, and perhaps even lead to solving problems. Discourse about people involved in those issues is usually counterproductive, especially if it is in the form of invective, or name calling, or blame -- unless the objective is for the individual who engages in it to feel better about himself or herself. At least that's my observation over the course of my life, and I've rarely found anyone who can mount a convincing argument to the contrary.

I'm sure you were just as quick to point that out when it was open season on slamming Bush

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I'm sure you were just as quick to point that out when it was open season on slamming Bush

Other than perhaps joining in the "fun" in a Sarah Palin thread during the election season of 2008, you'd be hard-pressed to find me violating this "rule" as I wrote it above with respect to "slamming Bush" anywhere on this forum. I may have chimed in on some policy discussions, but not in the way you are implying.

I can't take responsibility for the behavior of others. And yes, I reminded people many times during the Bush presidency that what he did mattered more than whether he was, for instance, the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

Discourse about issues can be productive, and perhaps even lead to solving problems. Discourse about people involved in those issues is usually counterproductive, especially if it is in the form of invective, or name calling, or blame -- unless the objective is for the individual who engages in it to feel better about himself or herself. At least that's my observation over the course of my life, and I've rarely found anyone who can mount a convincing argument to the contrary.

Quite true, it seems politicizing and ranting about individuals is a way of smoke screening the real issues. We have critical issues facing us that are being covered over, ignored and distorted.
We no longer have enough domestic oil to supply our needs.
We spend billions to buy oil from Arabs
We out source the heart of our economy the industrial worker.
We consume far more than we need.
We are like a bunch of drunken sailors in a lifeboat. The booze is running out and we have nowhere to go.

Yet the politics is so intense that nothing is being done to ensure our future as a viable country.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Once Obama care is fully implemented my health insurance payments go up to around $1000 or more a year. Plus it adds another $trillion to our debt. This is less expensive how?

I don?t know what is made with Obama care, but how can it be more expensive to your insurance payments? What are they doing wrong with the Obama care that it doesn?t get closer to other countries in price?
The cost to start this should be taken by the government, the trillion you mentioned. There is no surprise that this cost much at the beginning, but this should be amortized over time (as smc mentioned).

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Rather than the government paying for everyone's health maintenance costs in addition to emergency care, why not do something smarter like outlawing high-fructose sugar? As the use of this sugar spread throughout the US obesity has also spread in exactly the same way. You get rid of this sugar and you greatly decrease all the problems that come with obesity, like heart disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, fatigue, etc. 1/3 of the people in this country are now obese, and it is still climbing. It used to be that 1-2% of children were obese. Now it's 13%! People would be healthier and feel better. Isn't that a lot cheaper?

Personally I would prefer marking the products combined with elucidation about fructose.
Especially products labelled with diet do lot harm, because people think they are doing their self something good with less sugar. It contains less sugar, but most of it is fructose instead of a better sugar mix and it has often more fat than non diet products.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yes that's true but I'm not as quick to throw out statistics as you are.

I don?t want to throw out statistics. I know what they show in general, but they do not work on an individual, there are always exceptions and everybody could be the exception.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Quite true, it seems politicizing and ranting about individuals is a way of smoke screening the real issues. We have critical issues facing us that are being covered over, ignored and distorted.
We no longer have enough domestic oil to supply our needs.
We spend billions to buy oil from Arabs
We out source the heart of our economy the industrial worker.
We consume far more than we need.
We are like a bunch of drunken sailors in a lifeboat. The booze is running out and we have nowhere to go.

Yet the politics is so intense that nothing is being done to ensure our future as a viable country.

This goes both ways. Not only should you attack at person's policies rather that attacking them, but when electing a president you should praise his policies rather than praising them. Very few people who voted for Obama even knew much about his policies. They just knew he was a cool guy. And he wasn't Bush. (Neither was McCain btw)