Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Magic Mushrooms Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #11101554 -

Its obviously apparent that you two had your mind made up well before you entered this topic.

a few points:

The WHO is not partisan, hell its not even a part of this country. How could an organization that has no ties to either party be considered partisan? Maybe you don't know what partisan means? I would argue studies that somehow claim that we have the best healthcare, without insuring everyone, and costing people and our government more then any other nation is better?

I point to the world consensus list of the best healthcare, and you guys just say its partisan hackery, yet you bring no proof to the baseless accusations that the WHO is a communistic/socialist organization. And you put forth nothing of your own except "your word" well sorry if thats not enough for me.

Your polls of the "80 - 90%" only take into account of people who have healthcare, not people who had healthcare but then lost it because of loop holes, I think if you asked them the levels would go much lower.

You misread what I wrote when I was talking about the extremely wealthy, I am talking about the extremely wealthy who don't need insurance because they can pay for treatment out of pocket.

Preventative care does save money, if you detect cancer before its to bad you can remove it surgically before its an issue. Otherwise you have to go through Chemotherapy, multiple surgeries, lots of medicine, etc.

Even the Tea Party protesters said that they think reform is needed, just not this reform. that you guys foolishly hold on to this idea shows that you have no concept of the healthcare reality in this country.

Ironically I am sick and don't plan on staying on the computer that long, sorry If i missed some points I only read the first new post. I'll be on tomorrow or later tonight to respond in full.

And to you zappa, who said that this is socialist / borderline communist healthcare.


I guess Bill O'Reilly is a marxist now?


--------------------
"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable." - Hunter S Thompson

Check out Agio

Follow my NFL Blog

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Sombie]
    #11101745 -

Sombie said:
I guess Bill O'Reilly is a marxist now?


why are you so caught up on what oreilly thinks? Who cares what oreilly thinks?


--------------------
Long live kratom :kratom:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: danielx]
    #11102053 -

danielx said:
Sombie said:
I guess Bill O'Reilly is a marxist now?


why are you so caught up on what oreilly thinks? Who cares what oreilly thinks?


Count me as one who doesn't.

Sombie, in what way is cost or accessibility or distribution of payment at all related to discussion of quality of care?  It isn't.  Further, you continue to ignore my very personal preference for our system, which gives me a 10 times greater chance of surviving my cancers than the EU/UK.

I am quite well aware of why the people who want this want it.  It has NOTHING to do with lowering costs or improving care, neither of which will occur under any of these programs.  It is 100% about taking money from the few to pay for the many even more than they already do.  Panhandling bums.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Sombie]
    #11102399 -

Sombie said:
Its obviously apparent that you two had your mind made up well before you entered this topic.




I'm 52 years old. I read more than most, watch more than most, think more than most. Of course my mind is made up. Still, I listen to hear other viewpoints.

You should try to do the same.



Quote:
I guess Bill O'Reilly is a marxist now?


Why are you so foolish as to think I give a fuck what O'Reilly thinks?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11103517 -

Phred said:
Oh, now this is just utter bullshit. Define "millions".


Workers whose employer doesn’t provide any type of group coverage.  Since you called this “just utter bullshit”, here’s a link for ya.

“roughly three of every four people who tried to buy a policy from the individual health insurance market in the past three years didn't get one. The main reason cited was premium cost. About 57 percent said it was very hard or even impossible to find coverage they could afford.”

Phred said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Those that have insurance are constantly fighting their insurance companies over their coverage, pre-existing conditions, etc.


But that's just it - all available evidence shows this to be by far the exception rather than the rule. Unless you want to try to pretend that the almost ninety per cent of Americans responding to the polls are lying when they say they are either "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the health care they currently receive.


Even with your statistics, the “U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction”, according to Fox News.

Phred said:
It is universally recognized that the most reviled and demonstrably worst health care provider in the US is the VA.


I was actually referring to military healthcare, not veteran healthcare.  I have no experience with V.A. hospitals.

zappaisgod said:
If you wish you had something similar today why don't you fucking buy it for yourself?


I'd love to!  All I need is the public insurance option.  :shrug:

zappaisgod said:I've never had to fight with my insurance company because, unlike almost every asshole with a problem, I read the policy I subscribed to.  What a concept, read the contract


I know the contract.  That’s why I’m always fighting them.  I actually win most of the time, but it requires a tremendous time expenditure on my part.

Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Most people without health insurance are without it by choice and the number who would rather be without it and take the money but can't is most certainly larger.


See the US News article above.

zappaisgod said:
Every 20 something single male who thinks it's great that he has company health insurance is an idiot.


Except for those 20 something single males who are unfortunate enough to need it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11105693 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
If you wish you had something similar today why don't you fucking buy it for yourself?


I'd love to!  All I need is the public insurance option.  :shrug:


Bullshit.  You can most definitely buy something almost identical to whatever it was you got, certainly more identical among the hundreds of plans now out there than will be added with the one public option.  You just want back on the government (my) tit.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:I've never had to fight with my insurance company because, unlike almost every asshole with a problem, I read the policy I subscribed to.  What a concept, read the contract


I know the contract.  That�s why I�m always fighting them.  I actually win most of the time, but it requires a tremendous time expenditure on my part.


I'm very sorry you have so much illness.  I also don't believe you.
Quote:
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Most people without health insurance are without it by choice and the number who would rather be without it and take the money but can't is most certainly larger.


See the US News article above.


Can't or won't.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090820_A_true_count_of_the__uninsured_.html

Quote:
For the record, according to the latest data from the Census Bureau, 45.6 million Americans lack health insurance. This is actually down slightly from the 47 million who were uninsured in 2006.

However, those numbers don't tell the whole story. For example, roughly one-quarter of those counted as uninsured, or 12 million people, are eligible for but have not enrolled in Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP). This includes 64 percent of all uninsured children and 29 percent of uninsured parents.

Since these people would be enrolled in those programs automatically if they went to a hospital for care, calling them uninsured is misleading.

An additional 10 million uninsured Americans are not American citizens. Approximately 5.6 million of them are illegal immigrants. An additional 4.4 million are legal immigrants who have not been naturalized.

Nor are the uninsured necessarily poor, as one might assume. A study by former Congressional Budget Office director June O'Neill found that 43 percent of the uninsured have incomes above 250 percent of the poverty level, making at least $55,125 for a family of four. Slightly more than a third have incomes above $66,000.

Another study, by Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford University, concluded that nearly three-quarters of the uninsured could afford coverage but have chosen not to purchase it.

Most of the uninsured are young and in good health. According to the CBO, roughly 60 percent are under the age of 35, and fully 86 percent report that they are in good or excellent health.

Finally, when we hear about the 45 million Americans without health insurance, the suggestion is that they were all born without health insurance and will die without health insurance. But the reality is that most of them are uninsured only for a relatively short period of time.

No more than about 30 percent of the uninsured remain so for more than a year. Sixteen percent go without insurance for at least two years, and less than 2.5 percent for three years or longer. About half are uninsured for just six months or less. Because health insurance is too often tied to employment, the working poor who cycle in and out of the job market also cycle in and out of health insurance.



Choice.  I love that freedom.
Quote:
 

zappaisgod said:
Every 20 something single male who thinks it's great that he has company health insurance is an idiot.


Except for those 20 something single males who are unfortunate enough to need it.


How does anybody need insurance?  Medicaid provides care for the indigent.  The rest can pay for their own.  For the small number of people who might have extraordinary medical bills you would compel the vast number who don't to purchase a policy that is a stupid financial gamble for themselves?  For the vast majority who would rather take the cash you would exclude that choice?  I suspect you also think insurance companies should be compelled, among all the other asshole mandates crammed down our necks by the government for the benefit of the few, to ignore pre-existing conditions.  Which is beyond stupid.  Why would anybody pay for insurance until they got sick if they knew they could jump on the group tit the moment they did.  That's not insurance.

Pay your own bills and get out of my wallet.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11105781 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
�roughly three of every four people who tried to buy a policy from the individual health insurance market in the past three years didn't get one. The main reason cited was premium cost. About 57 percent said it was very hard or even impossible to find coverage they could afford.�


I guess it's about priorities, I paid $300/mo for a policy that covered
myself and my kids, I earned $10/hr at the time I started that policy
obviously their priorities must be the lease on the new SUV as I put off
considering an additional $400/mo in auto payments to ensure coverage
for the kids

who doesnt make $300/mo other than those not working who are then
suddenly eligible for medicare and medicaid, wait, what's that? a
publicly funded insurance program for people that cant afford to buy private health insurance?

Gee williker, if obama isnt telling us that there's already things like
that in place, what else isnt he telling us about that people could take
advantage of, state and county funded health departments, what about the
non-profit, publicly funded and charity hospitals that make up 2/3 of
hospitals in the US that anyone can go to, that dont preclude treatment
over a preexisting condition

so what exactly is the problem that we need another trillion added to the deficit


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11105813 -

zappaisgod said:
How does anybody need insurance?  Medicaid provides care for the indigent.  The rest can pay for their own.



more than 2000 hospitals in this country are listed as being charitable
hospitals, every hospital in this country will help you find the
finances to cover the bills through a multitude of different programs,
if you're not in need of any serious treatment there's the county health
department which costs nothing so the nearly 90% of america that's
covered under some health insurance is still covered, the other 10% has
other options available


if those that arent covered are too stupid to seek out the options
available to them, they're too stupid to continue to live


--------------------
California Has Legalized Child Prostitution

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11106155 -

zappaisgod said:
Bullshit.  You can most definitely buy something almost identical to whatever it was you got, certainly more identical among the hundreds of plans now out there than will be added with the one public option.


I had a choice of seven insurance options from my employer, and I chose their top one - Blue Cross Premier.  It sucks, but it beat the other options.

zappaisgod said:
You just want back on the government (my) tit.


You're not the only one here paying taxes.  As I've told you before, I pay more in taxes each year than the average worker's total gross salary.  Unlike yourself, I don't mind paying my fair share, because I still keep most of it.

zappaisgod said:
I'm very sorry you have so much illness.  I also don't believe you.


You want examples?  Here's a few:

1.  My wife recently changed her insurance to mine because it's a better plan.  But Blue Cross didn't pay any of her bills because they thought she might still be insured with her old company (she wasn't, and they didn't bother checking or asking us).  It took a year of phone calls and letters to finally get them to pay.
2.  My doctor (at UCSF - rated the #7 hospital in the country by US News) asked me to get x-rays from the UCSF dental facility, which doesn't take medical insurance.  He wrote a letter for my insurance company to reimburse me.  Six months after my claim, I followed up with the insurance company to ask why I hadn't been reembursed.  They said the doctor's letter failed to give a procedural code, but they never bothered telling me they needed it.  I had to go back to the doctor and have him rewrite the letter, even though they knew the procedural code from the description in his original letter.  They made me resubmit the entire claim.  My doctor was great, but the insurance company made the process as difficult as possible yet again.  Do you want more examples???

Actually, this is the 3rd time you've accused my of lying, and each time I've shown you were wrong.  If you feel your side is losing the debate, I suggest better rebuttals.

zappaisgod said:
Can't or won't.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090820_A_true_count_of_the__uninsured_.html


I'm talking about the people that can't.  And your article shows there are plenty that can't.

zappaisgod said:
How does anybody need insurance?  Medicaid provides care for the indigent.  The rest can pay for their own.  For the small number of people who might have extraordinary medical bills you would compel the vast number who don't to purchase a policy that is a stupid financial gamble for themselves?  For the vast majority who would rather take the cash you would exclude that choice?  I suspect you also think insurance companies should be compelled, among all the other asshole mandates crammed down our necks by the government for the benefit of the few, to ignore pre-existing conditions.  Which is beyond stupid.  Why would anybody pay for insurance until they got sick if they knew they could jump on the group tit the moment they did.  That's not insurance.

Pay your own bills and get out of my wallet.


Your point is well taken.  That's why I also support mandatory insurance for all (just like mandatory car insurance for all).  I don't want to pay for "the small number of people who might have extraordinary medical bills".  I also don't want to pay for people who only get insurance after they discover a pre-existing condition.  And America is too civilized a country to turn people away from the emergency room (that option isn't and probably never will be considered).


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11106313 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Bullshit.  You can most definitely buy something almost identical to whatever it was you got, certainly more identical among the hundreds of plans now out there than will be added with the one public option.


I had a choice of seven insurance options from my employer, and I chose their top one - Blue Cross Premier.  It sucks, but it beat the other options.


Or you could have worked elsewhere or gotten your own or done without and paid cash for care (What a Concept!)  You chose to restrict your choices by limiting yourself in your choice of employer.  Do you see why health insurance should be decoupled from employment?  You are allowing your employer to restrict your choices.  How nice.  Did they also offer you the option to just take more pay?
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
You just want back on the government (my) tit.


You're not the only one here paying taxes.  As I've told you before, I pay more in taxes each year than the average worker's total gross salary.  Unlike yourself, I don't mind paying my fair share, because I still keep most of it.


We have grossly different ideas about what fair share is, pal.  And I pay a fuckload more in taxes than you do. 
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
I'm very sorry you have so much illness.  I also don't believe you.


You want examples?  Here's a few:

1.  My wife recently changed her insurance to mine because it's a better plan.  But Blue Cross didn't pay any of her bills because they thought she might still be insured with her old company (she wasn't, and they didn't bother checking or asking us).  It took a year of phone calls and letters to finally get them to pay.


Just how many phone calls was that?  5?  10?  Tough shit.
Quote:
2.  My doctor (at UCSF - rated the #7 hospital in the country by US News) asked me to get x-rays from the UCSF dental facility, which doesn't take medical insurance.  He wrote a letter for my insurance company to reimburse me.  Six months after my claim, I followed up with the insurance company to ask why I hadn't been reembursed.  They said the doctor's letter failed to give a procedural code, but they never bothered telling me they needed it.  I had to go back to the doctor and have him rewrite the letter, even though they knew the procedural code from the description in his original letter.  They made me resubmit the entire claim.  My doctor was great, but the insurance company made the process as difficult as possible yet again.  Do you want more examples???


Your doctor fucked up.  Your doctor has a compliance agent who fucked up.  Do you know why the insurance companies require these things?  It is to prevent fraud.  Do you know who commits the fraud?  Doctors and patients.  So he had to write another letter.  How incredibly medieval.
Quote:
Actually, this is the 3rd time you've accused my of lying, and each time I've shown you were wrong.  If you feel your side is losing the debate, I suggest better rebuttals.


I said I don't believe you and you actually proved me right.  If that's your idea of having to fight with the insurance companies than you and I have vastly different ideas about what a fight is.  Fighting does not involve them requiring you to file the proper requisitions. 
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Can't or won't.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20090820_A_true_count_of_the__uninsured_.html


I'm talking about the people that can't.  And your article shows there are plenty that can't.


What's plenty?  My article shows that it's about 2% of the population.  I'm fucking sorry but that does not quite justify overhauling the entire system.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
How does anybody need insurance?  Medicaid provides care for the indigent.  The rest can pay for their own.  For the small number of people who might have extraordinary medical bills you would compel the vast number who don't to purchase a policy that is a stupid financial gamble for themselves?  For the vast majority who would rather take the cash you would exclude that choice?  I suspect you also think insurance companies should be compelled, among all the other asshole mandates crammed down our necks by the government for the benefit of the few, to ignore pre-existing conditions.  Which is beyond stupid.  Why would anybody pay for insurance until they got sick if they knew they could jump on the group tit the moment they did.  That's not insurance.

Pay your own bills and get out of my wallet.


Your point is well taken.  That's why I also support mandatory insurance for all (just like mandatory car insurance for all).  I don't want to pay for "the small number of people who might have extraordinary medical bills".  I also don't want to pay for people who only get insurance after they discover a pre-existing condition.  And America is too civilized a country to turn people away from the emergency room (that option isn't and probably never will be considered).


So you are fascist.  Then you must be in favor of all prohibition and forced exercise.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11106437 -

Eh you keep bringing up salaries to debate this idea.  Seems to me it should only be debated on ideological grounds.  My father for instance when we were growing up made enough money to qualify for the middle of middle class probably.  Now that Ive moved out the man is a salary monster, making Im sure well above what you make.  However he is still for socialized medicine, so it seems silly to keep harping on salary as if all wealthy people are against this idea.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Chespirito]
    #11106513 -

Any person who wants to pay more taxes is clearly entitled to do so.  The IRS will not turn it down.  Or to donate to any charity he chooses and even not take the deduction for it.  My problem arises when there is a compulsion to do so.  At the point of a gun, which is what all government acts come at.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11106543 -

zappaisgod said:
Or you could have worked elsewhere or gotten your own or done without and paid cash for care (What a Concept!)  You chose to restrict your choices by limiting yourself in your choice of employer.


Oh sure, anyone can work anywhere!  Why don't I just become the President of the US?  Why doesn't everyone???  There's a little sarcasm here, but finding a job isn't always as easy as you make it sound.

zappaisgod said:
Do you see why health insurance should be decoupled from employment?  You are allowing your employer to restrict your choices.  How nice.  Did they also offer you the option to just take more pay?


I'm actually not against decoupling health insurance from employment.  But I suspect that people who want to keep their private insurance over the public option would be against this.

zappaisgod said:
We have grossly different ideas about what fair share is, pal.  And I pay a fuckload more in taxes than you do.


Then you need to elect a libertarian into office.  Unfortunately for you, the majority wins in a democracy.

zappaisgod said:
Do you know why the insurance companies require these things?  It is to prevent fraud.  Do you know who commits the fraud?  Doctors and patients.  So he had to write another letter.  How incredibly medieval.


Bullshit.  They know the code based on the information in the doctor's letter.  They do it to see if they can get away with not paying.  That's why they never told me about the "error" in the first place - to see if they could get away with it.

zappaisgod said:
If that's your idea of having to fight with the insurance companies than you and I have vastly different ideas about what a fight is.  Fighting does not involve them requiring you to file the proper requisitions.


You missed the point.  The insurance company was billed for my wife's care and chose not to pay.  There was no paperwork error on our part.  A phone call should have straightened things out.  But it took a year of fighting; they tried to make us give up.

As for the other claim, they should have sent a courtesy notice to me saying there was a problem with my claim.  They didn't and sat on my money for six months until I finally asked about it.  I'd prefer Government insurance to that, thank you very much.  By the way, I'm only asking for that CHOICE.  You can still take private insurance if you want.

zappaisgod said:
My article shows that it's about 2% of the population.  I'm fucking sorry but that does not quite justify overhauling the entire system.


No, it doesn't.  It says that 98% of the uninsured eventually get insurance.  But they're screwed during the time they are uninsured.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (09/22/09 07:32 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11106561 -

zappaisgod said:
Any person who wants to pay more taxes is clearly entitled to do so.  The IRS will not turn it down.  Or to donate to any charity he chooses and even not take the deduction for it.  My problem arises when there is a compulsion to do so.  At the point of a gun, which is what all government acts come at.


You are in the wrong country pal.  Taxes are nothing new.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11106917 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Or you could have worked elsewhere or gotten your own or done without and paid cash for care (What a Concept!)  You chose to restrict your choices by limiting yourself in your choice of employer.


Oh sure, anyone can work anywhere!  Why don't I just become the President of the US?  Why doesn't everyone???  There's a little sarcasm here, but finding a job isn't always as easy as you make it sound.

  Do you not have a choice?  Are you not capable of making your desires known? 
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Do you see why health insurance should be decoupled from employment?  You are allowing your employer to restrict your choices.  How nice.  Did they also offer you the option to just take more pay?


I'm actually not against decoupling health insurance from employment.  But I suspect that people who want to keep their private insurance over the public option would be against this.


On what basis?  I suspect that there are many who don't like having their choices limited by their employer, such as yourself.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
We have grossly different ideas about what fair share is, pal.  And I pay a fuckload more in taxes than you do.


Then you need to elect a libertarian into office.  Unfortunately for you, the majority wins in a democracy.


And, unfortunately for you, the vast majority opposes the plan you advocate.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

Quote:
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed.

Just 43% now favor the proposal, including 24% who Strongly Favor it.


Quote:


zappaisgod said:
If that's your idea of having to fight with the insurance companies than you and I have vastly different ideas about what a fight is.  Fighting does not involve them requiring you to file the proper requisitions.


You missed the point.  The insurance company was billed for my wife's care and chose not to pay.  There was no paperwork error on our part.  A phone call should have straightened things out.  But it took a year of fighting; they tried to make us give up.

As for the other claim, they should have sent a courtesy notice to me saying there was a problem with my claim.  They didn't and sat on my money for six months until I finally asked about it.  I'd prefer Government insurance to that, thank you very much.  By the way, I'm only asking for that CHOICE.  You can still take private insurance if you want.


I don't think so.  You want subsidized insurance.  You want your choice of my money.  By the way, if there was a public option could you even take it with your employer situation?  If you opted for the Gummint plan would you get additional pay from your employer to make up for what you no longer cost him?  And if you could, why can't you demand compensation in cash NOW?  So many questions.    Unlike with employer or private health insurance your "free choice" of government health insurance comes with a loss of my freedom to not fund it.
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
My article shows that it's about 2% of the population.  I'm fucking sorry but that does not quite justify overhauling the entire system.


No, it doesn't.  It says that 98% of the uninsured eventually get insurance.  But they're screwed during the time they are uninsured.

Only if something happens.  Otherwise it's moot, isn't it?  And even if it does they will get care.  Then they can work out a payment plan.  Whoa, what a concept!  Pay for the services you receive. 

Insurance is not and must not be compulsory.  Do you not understand that this is yet another step down the road to infantilizing the American public?  Where is the dignity of risk?  The opportunity to say "I am an adult and accept the risks inherent in my decisions, which I and I only will bear."  When you are on the gummint tit that I fill I will rightfully demand that you refrain from all harmful behavior and exercise properly every day.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11106926 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
zappaisgod said:
Any person who wants to pay more taxes is clearly entitled to do so.  The IRS will not turn it down.  Or to donate to any charity he chooses and even not take the deduction for it.  My problem arises when there is a compulsion to do so.  At the point of a gun, which is what all government acts come at.


You are in the wrong country pal.  Taxes are nothing new.



I'd like to keep them as low as possible and oppose any effort to increase them.  That is why I oppose virtually everything you support.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11107088 -

Quote:
And, unfortunately for you, the vast majority opposes the plan you advocate.


They do indeed. Every single aspect of it - line by line - is rejected by clear majorities of voters. In some cases as high as eighty per cent of voters. There are, however, two reforms voters resoundingly endorse - also in the four-to-one range. Unfortunately for Dems, they are reforms the Repubs are pushing for. Reforms Dems refuse to even look at.

I'd excerpt the following survey results, but the total repudiation of Obamacare by the voters is so complete, so thorough, such a freaking across-the-board wipeout, that it deserves more than just an excerpt or two. It deserves savoring.

Go then, and savor.

So, Falcon... how you liking that whole "we live in a democracy" thing now?



Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Phred]
    #11107219 -

Phred said:
Quote:
And, unfortunately for you, the vast majority opposes the plan you advocate.


They do indeed. Every single aspect of it - line by line - is rejected by clear majorities of voters.


Actually, you're both wrong.  The public option still enjoys majority support (see question #22).  And any survey that specifically includes the public option is favored by the majority (feel free to Google public option polls).

Phred said:
I'd excerpt the following survey results, but the total repudiation of Obamacare by the voters is so complete, so thorough, such a freaking across-the-board wipeout, that it deserves more than just an excerpt or two. It deserves savoring.

Go then, and savor.

So, Falcon... how you liking that whole "we live in a democracy" thing now?


I noticed that the article COMPLETELY ingnored the public option polls, and only mentioned the single payer plan, which is an intentional deception for gullible conservative readers.

To answer your question - I still like that whole "we live in a a democracy" thing.

So how do you like being deceived by your own side???


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #11109140 -

Quote:
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 10-12, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,007 adults including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.


You can think that means something but I don't.  The majority of people asked that question in the poll wouldn't know what they were talking about.

By the way, did you know the public option is dead?  Original article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/health/policy/13plan.html?_r=2

Excerpts with commentary:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/13/nyt-public-option-all-but-dead/

If it's so popular how come they're abandoning it?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Bill O'Reilly supports the public option! [Re: zappaisgod]
    #11110442 -

zappaisgod said:
Quote:
This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Sept. 10-12, 2009, among a random national sample of 1,007 adults including users of both conventional and cellular phones. The results from the full survey have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three points. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.


You can think that means something but I don't.  The majority of people asked that question in the poll wouldn't know what they were talking about.


I don't understand why you think people who use phones aren't to be trusted, but pick ANY poll you trust that includes the public option.  People ALWAYS favor the public option, usually by more than the poll I posted.

zappaisgod said:
By the way, did you know the public option is dead?  Original article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/health/policy/13plan.html?_r=2

If it's so popular how come they're abandoning it?



That article was 12 Sep.  Here's one from 20 Sep:

Obama's media blitz: The public option absolutely is not dead  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck, Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Bill O'Reilly: "Bush sucks" Xochitl 2,234 14 02/10/04 11:45 PM
by EchoVortex
* Bill O'Reilly Interviews Rosie O'Donald mjshroomer 2,018 12 03/28/03 01:44 PM
by mjshroomer
* o'reilly vs franken part deux afoaf 547 1 07/16/04 07:28 PM
by sir tripsalot
* Bush Supports Ban on Assault Weapons
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 4,404 42 05/10/03 11:30 AM
by Xlea321
* "Cheeseburger Bill" approved protection for fast food Indus. daussaulit 1,908 9 03/11/04 06:01 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* Bill O'Reilly on marijuana
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 LearyfanS 2,852 74 09/05/03 05:05 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Moore's on O' Reilly Farctor tonight
( 1 2 all )		 question_for_joo 1,902 35 07/28/04 12:33 PM
by PsyllyMe
* Kerry supports our troops afoaf 1,144 16 03/20/04 01:41 PM
by Learyfan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
2,508 topic views. 2 members, 83 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.