Republicans question health care improvements

[DEDixon 39]

get my SS benefits early and then go live in a cheap foreign country is my goal. Go ahead, flame away, at this point, I HAVE NO SHAME!!!!!

The only problem is that in the "cheap foreign country" you might have to wait in line next to all the brown people to see the doctor.

I like brown people... my wife is brown, my brother's wife and kids are brown.. ####### is up with the people comment?

[Donna A 4]

.....who the heck is left to pay for this?

the ones that want it so bad.

Everyone pays. Whether you want it or not. That truly is the American way.

Umm, that's not the "American" way.....We are Capatalist, not Socialist and I don't want to pay for your freebie.....

As for the timing of all this; it's absurd in the midst of the worst recession ever and with the debt and deficit this President's run up to record levels, it's simply absurd to do this now.

Republicans have it right: TORT REFORM (Obama as a Laywer himself is resisting this), fix MEDICARE and MEDICAID first and wait for a recovery before throwing the monkey wrench into the HC system......

um arent u already paying for all those people sitting on welfare getting free money, food, and benifits?

[AlHayatZween 2]

get my SS benefits early and then go live in a cheap foreign country is my goal. Go ahead, flame away, at this point, I HAVE NO SHAME!!!!!

The only problem is that in the "cheap foreign country" you might have to wait in line next to all the brown people to see the doctor.

I like brown people... my wife is brown, my brother's wife and kids are brown.. ####### is up with the people comment?

was responding to your earlier comment about how you wanted to get back at the gov't & how Mexicans have ruined California...

if you are really that dissatisfied with what's happening here and you have the means to take off to another country, cheap or otherwise, more power to you...

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Well, if their proposals are so wonderful then why are they proposing to exempt all federal employees, including congress, as well as union members, railroad workers, fireman, policeman, and more?

We're talking exempting up to 20 million workers plus the hippocrits in congress themselves.....who the heck is left to pay for this?

Because the federal and state workers already have plans that the government pays for, genius.

The government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pay for it. Not only that, their insurance is private insurance, not a government option, genius.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The proposals being put forth now are designed to entice your employer to drop your coverage in favor of paying a token fee (fine) for each employee they don't provide medical coverage for.

Under the system we have today, what does it cost the employer to drop employees off health insurance coverage? Right. Nothing. Not a dime. Following your logic, employers are more enticed right now or - if nothing changes in the future - to drop coverage than they will be if law is changed. In fact, if your argument would hold any water at all, then employers simply wouldn't offer health insurance.

* crickets *

Well, if their proposals are so wonderful then why are they proposing to exempt all federal employees, including congress, as well as union members, railroad workers, fireman, policeman, and more?

We're talking exempting up to 20 million workers plus the hippocrits in congress themselves.....who the heck is left to pay for this?

Because the federal and state workers already have plans that the government pays for, genius.

The government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pay for it. Not only that, their insurance is private insurance, not a government option, genius.

There is no government option currently, genius.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The proposals being put forth now are designed to entice your employer to drop your coverage in favor of paying a token fee (fine) for each employee they don't provide medical coverage for.

Under the system we have today, what does it cost the employer to drop employees off health insurance coverage? Right. Nothing. Not a dime. Following your logic, employers are more enticed right now or - if nothing changes in the future - to drop coverage than they will be if law is changed. In fact, if your argument would hold any water at all, then employers simply wouldn't offer health insurance.

* crickets *

Well, if their proposals are so wonderful then why are they proposing to exempt all federal employees, including congress, as well as union members, railroad workers, fireman, policeman, and more?

We're talking exempting up to 20 million workers plus the hippocrits in congress themselves.....who the heck is left to pay for this?

Because the federal and state workers already have plans that the government pays for, genius.

The government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pay for it. Not only that, their insurance is private insurance, not a government option, genius.

There is no government option currently, genius.

There's no bill either, so you're supporting a "nothing", Einstein. Par for the course for you.

[kaydee457 13]

The absurdity to these proposals is profound.....

Let's see. My house burns down today, Sunday. I think I'll have to go out tomorrow (Monday) and buy some insurance to have the "Insurance Company" pay for my loss, for as we all know they just get the money from thin air and of course the others paying a Premium, some for years, won't mind my payout as it's the "moral" thing to do and I'm entitled to their dough! Liberal speak......

Oh, and for those of you that don't understand the term "Insurance" I provide this so that you can distinguish it from entitlement.

Insurance, in law and economics, is a form of risk management primarily used to hedge against the risk of a contingent loss.

Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another, in exchange for a premium, and can be thought of as a guaranteed and known small loss (paying a Premium) to prevent a large, possibly devastating loss.

An insurer is a company selling the insurance; an insured or policyholder is the person or entity buying the insurance.

The insurance rate is a factor used to determine the amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance coverage, called the premium. Risk management, the practice of appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of study and practice.

Source- wiki

Allowing people with pre-existing conditions to obtain full coverage takes the risk management out of the equation and makes this an entitlement.....a "right".

Democrats do not have the right to take money, our money, and use it as they please (redistribution) which is exactly what their flavor of "HC reform" is, and has always been.

It's their Liberal agenda and they see nothing wrong with it as they are the blessed ones with superior knowledge and and the champions of fairness and knowing of all things that benefit mankind.......

Don't believe me? Just read some of the posts from our resident Liberals in this thread!

Funny thing is that the funding of their lofty philanthropic endeavors is always someone else’s money, and of course they themselves (Liberal/Dems), the important ones in Washington- well they need not participate in the same loony scheme(s) they wish to impose on the rest of us.

Unfortunately for them (Dems in congress), most savvy citizens now recognize their agenda and it's going to cost them big time in 2010......

Edited October 25, 2009 by *entitlements_yay

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The proposals being put forth now are designed to entice your employer to drop your coverage in favor of paying a token fee (fine) for each employee they don't provide medical coverage for.

Under the system we have today, what does it cost the employer to drop employees off health insurance coverage? Right. Nothing. Not a dime. Following your logic, employers are more enticed right now or - if nothing changes in the future - to drop coverage than they will be if law is changed. In fact, if your argument would hold any water at all, then employers simply wouldn't offer health insurance.

* crickets *

Well, if their proposals are so wonderful then why are they proposing to exempt all federal employees, including congress, as well as union members, railroad workers, fireman, policeman, and more?

We're talking exempting up to 20 million workers plus the hippocrits in congress themselves.....who the heck is left to pay for this?

Because the federal and state workers already have plans that the government pays for, genius.

The government pays for nothing. Taxpayers pay for it. Not only that, their insurance is private insurance, not a government option, genius.

There is no government option currently, genius.

There's no bill either, so you're supporting a "nothing", Einstein. Par for the course for you.

I support nothing? Interesting. That means that you're opposing nothing.

[DeadPoolX 9]

A single-payer system isn't bad IF the government can not only run it efficiently, but keep monetary support a priority. Canada has had government-run health care for years and the single greatest problem is that it's massively underfunded. The reason for that is not for lack of taxation (especially provinces like BC which not only charge a premium but collect taxes for medical services), but poor management. The first program to have money cut from it is health care.

The U.S. is in a fantastic position. It can LEARN from the health care programs in other countries. For instance... it can see what works and what doesn't in Canada and modify itself in an attempt to avoid Canada's problems. Of course, that assumes government is actually paying attention and reacting appropriately. Unfortunately, that's a very large assumption, bordering on naive wishful thinking.