Health Care Ruling
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-07-2012, 07:38 AM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(08-07-2012 12:20 AM)StAlesiterCrowley Wrote:  Not really a fan of the whole health care takeover.
I understand this position intellectually ^^^^^

However, it can also be said this is far from a takeover - in fact, if anything, this legislation primarily serves to strengthen the insurance industry. People reliant on Medicaid will continue to be left out in the cold until states decide (cave in) to accept the federal funding required to make the system work.

A true "takeover" would have been the expansion on Medicare beyond the elderly. Raising the Medicare tax would have resolved it -- but then we couldn't call it a mandate and it would have been a tax (continue cartwheels here...)

It does raise the question -- is there a modern government in the world that does not offer some form of, if not universal coverage for its citizens, socialized medicine? Even the US has been in the socialized medicine game since 1965 -- but only for select demographics...

"Like" my Facebook page
Brain Droppings Blog
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT16Rq3dAcHhqiAsPC5xUC...oR0pEpxQZw]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-07-2012, 12:16 PM
RE: Health Care Ruling
(29-06-2012 07:11 AM)Seasbury Wrote:  
(29-06-2012 12:54 AM)Filox Wrote:  Can anyone please find me a passage here that says that every doctor has to take money for every exam he makes? Is there a passage here that tells the doctor who he can treat and who he can not? Can you show me where does it say that a doctor must refuse to treat a patient who has no medical care?

I wonder how can people that are against this law live with their selves? Can you be more immoral, please? Can you care less for those that are sick and in need of help, but have no money for that? How can anyone call himself a doctor and refuse to treat a patient, just because of money?

I mean, Jesus Christ people, WTF?!?
My biggest problem with the legislation is that it was compromised and did not go nearly far enough.

Extending Medicare for all would have been a better solution, in my opinion, then putting a means test on it (Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, etc. do not need Medicare). A single-payer, coverage for all would have been the optimal solution.

There are many that oppose this law based on the fact it has Obama-cooties and nothing more. There are others, including many libertarians, that see this as government overreach and placing citizens even further at the mercy of the government to take care of them.

Again, I harp on this a lot, we are not asking the right questions to begin with. Is citizen-health an issue that government should be involved in? Does the republic benefit from a healthy citizenry? Is this part of the social contract that governments should be expected to perform? If the answer is yes, then legislation (and funding) should be passed. If the answer is no - then government should get out of the Medicare/Medicaid game altogether.

We've been operating for 50 years on this quasi-"socialist" model and the costs are depleting way to much of the federal budget. People say the Affordable Health Care act will bankrupt the country, but I argue that maintaining the status quo would do the same -- something needed to be done - this isn't a great law, but at least it attempts to fix a problem...

Once again Seasbury hits the nail on the head. Thumbsup

One of the reasons I voted for Hillary in the primaries- she had a more comprehensive and stronger health care plan. She had been working on it for years.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: