Bush keeps vetoing away (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


Lordandmaster -> Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 7:53:22 AM)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_veto

Yay, let's keep that dangerous health insurance stuff out of the hands of innocent children.  They don't need no stinkin' health insurance.




sub4hire -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 8:25:01 AM)

Well, he's your president.




popeye1250 -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 8:35:36 AM)

Funny, he didn't veto a $34.6 Billion "Foreign Aid" Bill that's up 190% in ten years.
And, he won't veto a $60Billion "supplemental" spending Bill on Iraq but he'll veto a health bill for children in the U.S.




farglebargle -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 10:10:21 AM)

Well, you know... Kids in foreign lands need healthcare... I guess Bush just cares more about those kids then American Kids.

Hey, FWIW, he loves Saudi Arabia more than America.





ownedgirlie -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 12:41:26 PM)

I had a really interesting discussion with an old friend last week, and she brought up some good points which I had not previously considered.

Health insurance does not guarantee health care.  She and I were both commenting how we each pretty much have the best insurance plan we can have - an expensive PPO plan, in which we can choose whichever doctor we wish to see, without waiting for referrals, etc.

And yet, both of us have had procedures done, by doctors within the PPO plan, only to receive ridiculously high bills afterward.  Why?  Oh, our insurance doesn't cover THAT.  Oh, our insurance only covers PART of that.  Not written in our Plan Book?  Of course not, it's a subjective decision, made by the administrators of the policy.

With my recent surgery, the hospital was in the plan, as was the surgeon, as were the nurses.  The anesthesiologist, however, was not, and I owe him about $600.  How the heck was I supposed to remember to research all of this, when faced with whether or not I had cancer?

I am learning of more & more family doctors who will only charge a small fee for office visits, because it is more worthwhile for them to do that than to contend with the insurance companies.  My sister's family doctor charged $35/visit for all members of her family, when they were without insurance.  Only $10 more than their former co-payment.

Insurance does not equate healthcare.  Something to consider.




thornhappy -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 5:54:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ownedgirlie

With my recent surgery, the hospital was in the plan, as was the surgeon, as were the nurses.  The anesthesiologist, however, was not, and I owe him about $600.  How the heck was I supposed to remember to research all of this, when faced with whether or not I had cancer?

I'd fight this long and hard.  I had the same damn thing happen a several years ago and got somewhat, uh, loud on the phone.  I believe I asked whether I was to check the guy's affiliation whilst I was on the table.  It's not like I met him before I got to the hospital.  They reduced the charges to the "in-network" rate.

The next year, the plan covered any anesthesiologist at a covered hospital.  Hopefully  the plan administrator was hit with a clue-by-four.

Insurance may not guarantee you health care, but may keep you out of bankruptcy, with "maximum out-of-pocket" benefits.

thornhappy




awmslave -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 9:05:17 PM)

I see it just as a political game US Democrats play. US Congress wants to expand the program by about 60 billion the president has stated he agrees with only 30 bln increase and Dems keep sending the same bill. Even with 30 bln we are still talking about significant expansion of the program. I  think in this case the veto is justified.  Government has no money; everyhing comes from taxes.  If the bill passes low income families with no children will actually support families with children that may have higher income per capita.




ownedgirlie -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 9:08:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy
Insurance may not guarantee you health care, but may keep you out of bankruptcy, with "maximum out-of-pocket" benefits.

thornhappy



Yes, very true and great point.  I do think, however, that health insurance itself needs to be looked at, since having it doesn't necessarily mean you'll be taken care of.   I will never forget the look on a very elderly man's face, who came to me when I worked for an ambulance firm, holding up his bill for his wife's ride to the hospital.  Medicare deemed the ride "not medically necessary", even though she died shortly after arrival.

LaM, I hope these comments are not hijacking your thread.  I do think it would be great if all had the healthcare they need.  But my conversation with my friend, and my own personal experiences, made me realize that health insurance does not necessarily mean health care. 

Oh and I agree, thornhappy - I have not paid the bill, and probably won't.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 9:27:41 PM)

Do some research into earmarks, and what some of the new freshman congressman are doing. Earmarks need to be done away with completely. Also, look at many other Presidents, towards the end of their last term, and their amount of vetos went up as well. Many people just look at the headline, but has anyone actually read some of these bills? Some of the stuff that is earmarked or added, has nothing to do with the original bill. It is like bringing your dog in the house, and all the fleas are on it. Both sides do it, and both sides need to stop. Check into your local congressman, and see how much they do it. Let your congressman know that you are not going to put up with that business as usual bullshit.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 9:53:20 PM)

Actually, we voted out our congressman last year because he was a Bush supporter.  But thanks for the advice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Let your congressman know that you are not going to put up with that business as usual bullshit.




cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 10:17:59 PM)

There is some recent data come out that showed that the United States needs to cut civil spending by 15% or the dollar will eventually collapse. Money is being spent that we dont have. Even if you increase taxes, it wont offset it. Programs need to be cut across the board.

Programs like SCHIP would have to be eliminated. We just dont have the money. SCHIP costs more than twice the budget NASA gets every year.

People are not paying on their loans anymore and the government is starting to feel the pressure on the interest payments on the national debt. Pretty soon the dollar is just not going to be able to hold that weight and would collapse.




Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 10:20:50 PM)

Yes, I vote that we start by cutting programs like invading Iraq.




Termyn8or -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/12/2007 11:16:35 PM)

Do you want the Terminator solution. It is guaranteed to work if it could be implemented.

Every Man, Woman and child in this country drop coverage now, completely. Let them sue eveybody until there are more lawyers than doctors working for the hospitals. Let supply and demand really kick in.

You got people who pay through the nose for healthcare and get no better treatment than a wetback.

Oh, and fuck anyone who says I can't use that term. That term means anyone who is in this country against the law. Prove it is something racial and I will not use it again.

The first thing people have to realize is that they do not owe you anything at all. After they tax you they might, but not everything. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a single word about healthcare. If so, show me. I got a copy, just tell me where it is. I have read it, and I did not see it.

They owe you to provide for the COMMON defense, and a few other things relating to the infrastructrure, but very little. But they take all the work they can get because now, they have a golden opportunity to fuck it up and overrun costs and build unreliable garbage that needs continual upkeep. This way they keep their fingers in many more pies.

Let me tell you something now, very hard to accept, very hard to swallow, but I have some faith in CM people to be able to handle a new idea.

Some of you might remember me in other threads telling you just how much comtempt the rich who we support have for us. Some of you may remember about other issues, a similar point to that which I will make now.

All you people who needed a hospital in which to be born, were saved by medical science, who benefitted by advancements in technology, those disformed, handicapped and disabled. To you I say this. They only keep you alive so they can play the game, you reproduce and that breeds more people they can "help".

This makes portions of entire generations dependant on "them" and propogates further exploitation.

Let me ask you this. You have a $900,000 CAT scanner. You have had it for ten years. It was a tremendous writeoff in previous years, but 300 CAT scans at $3,000 each yields what ? But wait, there are 365 days in each year. Now with a $900,000 product, I would expect it's life cycle to be at least five years.

When do you and I get a chance to triple or quadruple our money in five years ? I don't say quintuple because people have to be paid to run it.

But why did it cost so much ?

You are asked to give, in this case with your tax dollars, to bear the cost of treating the needy. And if they pass it and you are a taxpayer you have no choice.

Well, it is not fair. If you don't get it it is not fair to you, if you ever contributed. If you get it it is not fair to me. Because I don't take that kind of favor.

Quick back to the CAT scanner. If the suits were not making more than the engineers, with their yahcts and Lear jets, pensions that boggle the mind and bonuses out the ass, that CAT scanner would cost one tenth what is does. But then once it gets to your local clinic or hospital, there is a whole nother bunch of suits to feed.

So the cost could be amortized alot quicker, I am not saying it would be cheap, but there are so many non-producing MFs involved in the process that it has made it prohibitively expensive.

Let's say there was no insurance or anything, it would all be out of pocket. Let's say the US goes to a VAT like Europe. We have more money in our pocket, but everything went up overnight.

No insurance, no nuthin. You need a CAT scan, hell even an ultrasound you pay. Full price. Most of us couldn't afford an ultrasound !, and you know it. And what's more, they advertise schools to become an ultrasound technician, do you realize that I already make more than that, and that I am actually technically a high school dropout ?

Like the computer schools, once they get your grant money and student loan money, you are on the hook. You might still be working at McDonald's.

But ultrasounds are commonplace now, and they ,,, the workers that is, simply don't make all that much money. The suits are making the money.

They might say "You can make $20,000 a year". I would laugh. You can't live on that anymore. And to be saddled with a loan, but then all that matters is that the suits and their families are doing well.

The grunts (that is you and I) are left to our own resources. What they get in proportion to what they do is never reviewed nor questioned, but when it comes to us it is. We are held responsible for everything, while they are not, while they take as nuch as they can, as long as they can.

This is the crux of the problem. This is why I want nothing from them.

T




thornhappy -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/13/2007 6:30:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

All you people who needed a hospital in which to be born, were saved by medical science, who benefitted by advancements in technology, those disformed, handicapped and disabled. To you I say this. They only keep you alive so they can play the game, you reproduce and that breeds more people they can "help".
T

Geez, T, how...delicate...of you.  I was born with a brain malformation, not diagnosed until I was 40, and yeah, needed all that hi-falutin' medical science, along with about 4 hours of neurosurgery.  Saved my eyesight, kept me from being disabled, and probably saved my life.

But you'll be glad to know that I didn't reproduce (even though there's no firm genetic connection to Arnold-Chiari malformations), and pollute the genetic stream of mankind.

thornhappy




philosophy -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/14/2007 9:43:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

If the bill passes low income families with no children will actually support families with children that may have higher income per capita.


...whoopy-doo-skip.......so what is it you have against children? They may have a slightly higher income, but offset that against the cost of raising a child and the difference disappears. It's a simple moral choice.......should children get good health care regardless of their parents financial position. If you say yes, then support the bill, if you say no then don't.....be clear about it.
[sarcasm]Say it loud say it proud.....i'd rather see kids die before my tax dollars pay for their health care.[/sarcasm]




Sanity -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/14/2007 10:28:19 AM)

Why stop there? Children deserve to ride in only the finest, safest automobiles, too. And they deserve only the very best gourmet food, the ultimate in private schooling or in-home tutoring, the latest most fashionable clothing, as well as premium housing. There is no end to it - if you're not providing all these things and more for even the wealthiest children (just in case their billionaire parents won't) then you're a cruel, heartless bastard.


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

If the bill passes low income families with no children will actually support families with children that may have higher income per capita.


...whoopy-doo-skip.......so what is it you have against children? They may have a slightly higher income, but offset that against the cost of raising a child and the difference disappears. It's a simple moral choice.......should children get good health care regardless of their parents financial position. If you say yes, then support the bill, if you say no then don't.....be clear about it.
[sarcasm]Say it loud say it proud.....i'd rather see kids die before my tax dollars pay for their health care.[/sarcasm]




cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/14/2007 11:18:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

If the bill passes low income families with no children will actually support families with children that may have higher income per capita.


...whoopy-doo-skip.......so what is it you have against children? They may have a slightly higher income, but offset that against the cost of raising a child and the difference disappears. It's a simple moral choice.......should children get good health care regardless of their parents financial position. If you say yes, then support the bill, if you say no then don't.....be clear about it.
[sarcasm]Say it loud say it proud.....i'd rather see kids die before my tax dollars pay for their health care.[/sarcasm]


Why bother have parents then? I mean if the government is going to fund our kid's healthcare, education, and welfare why not have the government raise the kids? And when the kids are old enough the government can even provide them with a job!




luckydog1 -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/14/2007 11:47:47 AM)

I actually think a healthy population is a valid national security goal.  And full coverage would be immensly valuable in dealing with and recognizing a bio attack or Pandemic early, minimizing damage.  We need a national health care so we can detect and virtually quarintine dieases like AIDS.  I see a national health system as a great way to catch illegal immigrants also.  We could use it to get the psychologially impaired homeless off the streets, protecting them and society.   And that it would make American business and workers more competitive accross the board, when compared to other deverloped economies.

Cyber I would like the gov to provide education to every child in the form of vouchers, that can be used to say 21 in Primary Secondary Univeristy or Technical school.  If the parents are unwilling or unable to raise them properly the state should step in.  Things I have seen in poor neighboorhods when I was a younger man make me feel a boarding school would be far better for many kids, than leaving them with crackhead useless parents.  Or suffering horrible sexual and physical abuse in well off homes.

Schip is a usefull program but its really just a wastefull stopgap.  Overhualling The health system would produce massive savings in the Social Security system, Veterans Benefits, eliminate Medicade and Medicare.  It would also change things far for the better for retirement plans accross the nation and in states.  And frankly just make people happy.  The Fiscal situation would improve in every state and city and familly.  The health of our people and economy is what its all about and is as related to national security as having a Marine Corp. 

The current bill was loaded with ridiculous earmarks, and deserves to be rewritten.  This really is my main problem with Bush and the current Republicans.  I think Bush would be considered a God if he had pushed for national helath coverage after 911.  And I honestly think it is a valid national security thing




philosophy -> RE: Bush keeps vetoing away (12/14/2007 11:49:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

Why stop there? Children deserve to ride in only the finest, safest automobiles, too. And they deserve only the very best gourmet food, the ultimate in private schooling or in-home tutoring, the latest most fashionable clothing, as well as premium housing. There is no end to it - if you're not providing all these things and more for even the wealthiest children (just in case their billionaire parents won't) then you're a cruel, heartless bastard.


...there is clearly a difference between what you say above and stopping children from suffering from preventable diseases and treatable injuries, regardless of their parents financial status.
If you'd rather watch children suffer rather than watch a cent of your taxes fund their health care then say so. i may not agree with you, but at least you'd be honest.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125