National Health Care Bill...A national health scare?

[Cheech]

cheech i need to go to bed, i gotta work tomorrow so we'll have to continue this some other time. That being said, you ask for sources from me, I give you them then you question their credibility, yet your response to all my points is "empty blowhard rhetoric" with no facts.

In the morning I invite you to re-read my earlier post. I provided rebuttals to your points that needed rebutting, agreements on the ones that I agreed with (the lawsuit thing), and smackdown on quoting a clearly biased think tank as verifiable fact. If you seriously believe that I'm giving you "empty blowhard rhetoric" (your words, not mine) as arguments then there's really no point in me continuing.

If you want to give a homeless man 5 bucks thats great. But if I put a gun to your head and make you give the homeless man 5 bucks is it still a good charitable act?

No, it's extortion.

Universal Healthcare is no different.

I'm going to pretend for a moment that your underlying argument that universal government program == extortion by gunpoint is valid. By that premise, do you support the complete abolishment of Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, HUD (specifically housing assistance for the poor), unemployment benefits, etc?

If you don't see it as a violation of your rights, I can't spell it out for you any more than that. I've listed the 9th and 10th amendments, its the federal government imposing on states rights and the "rights of its people".

This thing you keep saying, I don't think it means what you think it means. I'll spell it out in a little more detail.

Article 6, paragraph 2 delegates to Congress the authority to create laws which are the overruling laws of the country. Unless another state already has a law that's in direct conflict with Federal law, the Feds win. Now if (IF) it comes to pass that the bill requires individual state funding out of their respective general funds, I can consider that a legitimate constitutional beef.

I've done plenty of research, maybe you should read the bill, I posted the PDF link earlier from the house of rep. Page 124 mentions price fixing by the government, that limits a doctors pay.

That doesn't limit a doctor's pay, that limits the amount a doctor can charge for a certain procedure. In fact, nothing in there says anything about a doctor's compensation. Zero. Guidelines for procedure payment are already in place by the insurance companies. In this case, if you go over you're the one paying instead of the insurance co. If you don't believe me, I think I still have my EOB from last year for a simple allergy test that cost me $150 out of pocket.

I tried to offer you solutions, if you don't like some of them, what solutions do you suggest besides a government handout? And please don't argue for some ideal perfect world scenario of universal healthcare, because thats not whats being proposed. Support the legislation thats in the docket, because that IS what's being proposed by our government.

I've already responded to your solutions. Tort reform is a decent thing, perhaps not done quite the way you'd do it, but it's a decent start and would put a dent in healthcare pricing. "Defensive medicine" goes away when frivolous lawsuts and bullshit drug marketing do, again playing into your solution.

However, with arguments like this:

The fact is 90% of american *citizens* have insurance and 80% of those who do are happy with it! It's the illegals and indigent are the ones that have the most to gain from this program. But you could fix the system with those 3 points, without more government bureaucracy breaking the bank and replacing something that already works for the most part.

it seems to me like you are basically arguing to keep the status quo, just tweak it a little. Clearly you must have more money than I do, as an asthmatic I'm getting killed with prescriptions.

As far as more current figures, we'll get them in 2010 with the new census... sort of, because no where on the form does it mention whether or not you're a legal resident of the U.S.

I will look forward to that.

Alright seriously, I need some sleep. Sorry you just downed a pot of columbia's finest roast and I'm now heading to bed, have a good one.

It's cool, I've got Pepe picking me some more beans right now and I'm off tomorrow. Go for broke. Have a good night.

[velnarah]

+1, does anyone bother to research the source anymore?

hrm.....

These were on the first page of Google search when I looked up "Rick Joyner". Yea, this guy can be trusted...

...mmmhhhrrrmm.... fine research my friend!

google and youtube vids..I'm sure the guy who put that video together is totally reliable..

Why not get your facts from the real source and not the first page of google results?

still...I suggest that perhaps the biggest problem with your research is that you typed in 'Rick Joyner' for your search topic. maybe it should have been 'national health care bill'... or better yet, the guy who did the summary: Mat Staver of the Freedom Foundation and Liberty Counsel

Mathew D. Staver*

Founder and Chairman Dean and Professor of Law

Liberty Counsel Liberty University School of Law

Offices in Florida, Virginia and the District of Columbia, Lynchburg, Virginia

(800) 671-1776 - Telephone (434) 592-5300 - Telephone

www.LC.org

www.law.liberty.edu

that would be a more accurate source for the actual topic of this thread which is the bill itself.

If you just want to peg Mr. Joyner, a new thread might be in order.

[fusion]

that would be a more accurate source for the actual topic of this thread which is the bill itself.

If you just want to peg Mr. Joyner, a new thread might be in order.

Except for this of course posted from the OP...

"SPECIAL BULLETIN

NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner"

Doesn't make the list anyless worthless.

We'll set aside that Liberty is kind of a joke.

[PrincessPratt]

So you admit you commented on (bitched about) something you didn't even read??? Doesn't sound very bright.

Gosh looks like YOU are also guilty of not reading thoroughly. Just b/c I skimmed it does not mean I didn't read it nor have the intent on not going back and giving a thorough reading Jeremy (fusion). I gave a very brief synopsis of what I thought. I am a nurse practitioner in a palliative medicine practice and I've been following the government's agenda the last few years with what is going to affect my patients, their families, and MY reimbursement.

Yes I was the one that gave you the negative rep. Rep is just disagreeing or agreeing with what another person said/wrote. I could care less about it and you shouldn't either. Gosh it's just a public forum. It's the internet thus who freakin cares. I can tell your maturity level to revert to "name" calling. Your lack of effort in coming up with an educated response in the public and on the rep shows me what type of character and smarts you really have. I know the salt that I'm worth and what you write isn't going to affect my self worth nor my income sir. So sling away.......

[fusion]

Gosh looks like YOU are also guilty of not reading thoroughly. Just b/c I skimmed it does not mean I didn't read it nor have the intent on not going back and giving a thorough reading Jeremy (fusion). I gave a very brief synopsis of what I thought. I am a nurse practitioner in a palliative medicine practice and I've been following the government's agenda the last few years with what is going to affect my patients, their families, and MY reimbursement.

Yes I was the one that gave you the negative rep. Rep is just disagreeing or agreeing with what another person said/wrote. I could care less about it and you shouldn't either. Gosh it's just a public forum. It's the internet thus who freakin cares. I can tell your maturity level to revert to "name" calling. Your lack of effort in coming up with an educated response in the public and on the rep shows me what type of character and smarts you really have. I know the salt that I'm worth and what you write isn't going to affect my self worth nor my income sir. So sling away.......

You're a nurse practioner? Don't think I knew that , I guess that changes everything then.

Thanks for another post that doesn't even address the the topic at hand.

I addressed those that didn't read what they felt the need to comment on (in your case bitch about) as idiots. Idiot isn't name calling, it's a descriptor that fairly sums up your mental capability when it comes to these types of discussions that may involve any sort of critical thinking. Anyway, that was a general statement and yes you probably fall into that category. It even says less that in your skimming you couldn't determine that the statement you were bitching about was false. It takes about 30 seconds to read that section to determine what it entails.

As for an educated response, you might want to go back compare my response to yours. Your response I commented was uneducated by definition given you didn't even comprehend the topic, the lines referenced in the bill, which was exactly what I was addressing (the topic and peoples inability to comprehend).

Oh and it's Jeremi, with an 'i', dumbass. There's your name calling...no wait that seems to an adequate descriptor as well.

[ChickOn2]

the following is a snippet... the full version can be found at http://www.morningstarministries.org/Articles/1000054411/MorningStar_Ministries/Media/Special_Bulletins/2009/Special_Bulletin_19.aspx

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

SPECIAL BULLETIN

NATIONAL HEALTH SCARE

By Rick Joyner

...annnd DONE reading anything this man has to say. Morning Star Ministries states its purpose as "preparing the nation's lawmakers and leadership for The Last Days." EVERYTHING he says will be slanted because he is a BIBLE NUT. Because this man is used as the 'jump-off for this discussion, I hereby declare this thread an INSTANT FAIL.

I did, and I checked some of the lines from the OP and what do you know... they're correct. Here take a look for yourself, all 1018 pages.

Being on 'the right' I would assume you already knew that you can't go picking random out lines of a major document out of context. That's how people use literature to alter the meaning and advance their own agendas.

the stupid people yes, we've just reached (and not recently either) the point where the stupid/lazy are the majority and like JRMMiii want everything spoon fed to them.

LOL!! Personal attacks, though? SRSLY? How Rush Limbaugh of y'all... when the logic is a FAIL... when the fear-mongering runs thin, simply resort to personal attacks. "AH STILL AIN"T SEENT NO BERF CERTIFICUTT!" And is that to say that because someone doesn't have access to healthcare that they are stupid or lazy? what if they're a widow? Or laid off? Or were rejected due to a pre-existing condition? Or work for a small business? Faily McFailerson LOL

As long as we are making generalizations, I COULD say that everyone who opposes universal health care is greedy, racist, fearful, with no regard for the health and well-being of their fellow Americans. But that would be wrong wouldn't it LOL.

1.) you're imposing on my rights because you're forcing me to pay for someone else's healthcare.

You're already doing that, hunny bunny. The only difference will be that now, people who go to work every day can also get healthcare just like the people on the welfare, even if their employer doesn't offer it.

In summary, Fear tactics FAIL. The sky is not falling. No one is going to murder old people in their sleep. If you have insurance and you're happy with it, keep it. If not, you will have another option. The right needs to stop with the sour grapes. Pouting is not a good look.

[socaln8tv]

i used to be/am registered rep., more-so right fiscally and moderately socially progessive, but as of late the two party system has me running for the hills and both are like identical cousins. not going off on a rant, but im completely & inherantly against electronic medical record keep on any level. its the ins co's, our employers and the government all in bed together -- that bothers me the most.

[socaln8tv]

..

Being on 'the right' I would assume you already knew that you can't go picking random out lines of a major document out of context. That's how people use literature to alter the meaning and advance their own agendas.

i couldnt agree more.

this of course applies to any organzations' agenda, a trade union, lobby, organized religion. they all had a good purpose initially/on some issues --but in the end, they show up to serve themselves.

[ChickOn2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629779856246193.html

Sally Pipes.. Canadian-born leader of the Pacific Research Institute' date=' a "conservative think tank" (slight contradiction in terms LOL) that is known as the "looney fringe," and good for faulty comparisons, dated information, and a lot of good laughs.

So yeah, big news that she is against it... this point fails, so please click here: [url']http://www.pacdudegames.com/fail and press the blue button.

[Disclaimer]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Pacific_Research_Institute

Notice they're funded by PhRMA and Pfizer

I read the article, and it's funny how everything and the words are carefully constructed and placed so they're truthful, but not painting the full picture.

For example:

This is not the case. In the first place, a recent CBO report ("Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals, " December 2008) is clear on one issue: Working to achieve universal coverage through expanding government's role in health care will increase total costs and therefore either increase premiums or taxes, not reduce them.

Total costs would increase, but what about the costs per capita? That's the important metric.

I'm not saying that 'left' or 'liberal' people aren't guilty of the same, but people need to filter the bullshit and look at the important and pertinent cause/effect, cost-benefit relationships. Total cost isn't the important metric in this case..

[Disclaimer]

This was in my e-mail today... too funny not to post.

[Aerik]

I'm pretty sure that's from tshirthell.com. They have lots of funny stuff.

[Disclaimer]

BLOOD MOON..

ROTFLMAO!!!!! :lol:

[Rod38um]

Prepare yourself, we are all about to be bent over:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090803/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_economy;_ylt=AstjeXMe7SK8GbwiLA7fhVGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJzNWR2amwwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwODAzL3VzX2Vjb25vbXkEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zX2Nva2UEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb2JhbWFvZmZpY2lh

[dmagicglock]

Sally Pipes.. Canadian-born leader of the Pacific Research Institute, a "conservative think tank" (slight contradiction in terms LOL) that is known as the "looney fringe," and good for faulty comparisons, dated information, and a lot of good laughs.

So yeah, big news that she is against it... this point fails, so please click here: http://www.pacdudegames.com/fail and press the blue button.

I guess the part that confuses me the most is that everyone wants to contest the guy that the OP referenced but fails to contest the actual legislation? I can understand questioning someone's credibility to say an article is biased. But read the damn legislation and see for yourself. It's not just "right wingers" not wanting to provide for apathetic people who do nothing to benefit society or themselves. The legislation is true government control of the medical industry. Check out page 30 of the legislation. Here, I'll actually quote it so I'm not misconstruing the wording for my benefit.

"(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi-

sory Committee shall be composed of the following

members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal em-

ployees or officers and who are appointed by

the President. "

Weird? So with 80 czars we already have who "aren't appointed or approved by Congress or Senate" we now have 9 people, directly appt. by the President, without regard to a Senate committee like you would see with the supreme court, who are in charge of deciding what is deemed medically necessary. The executive branch is quickly gaining control over every facet of our lives, (bank, auto, insurance, housing, and now medical). Make fun, say the sky is falling, blah blah , but fundamentally its wrong and you can't deny it.

[fusion]

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life.

This is such crap! I have end of life discussions..yakkity, blah, blah, blah

Except it doesn't say what they claim at all...

I wish idiots would actually read the thing. It even includes this wonderful little line as a part of that section, "effectively communicates the individual’s

preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individual;"

This one directly refutes this one and I quoted the part from that section that helps provide evidence.

OR

Better stock up on your ....and people actually voted for this guy and believe he is doing good?

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, it does not matter what specialty you have, you’ll all be paid the same.

Seriously? WOW!

That doesn't say that either.

You realize the insurance companies only pay certain amounts based on fee schedules as well right? Did you also know that doctor's offices (to include dentists) often charge you based on those fee schedules?

Merely needed pointing out that those lines are about fee schedules which all insurance companies use.

Edited August 4, 2009 by fusion
This post has earned me the honor of the negative unsigned rep: "You must have an extremely full life buddy, huh?"

[ChickOn2]

I guess the part that confuses me the most is that everyone wants to contest the guy that the OP referenced but fails to contest the actual legislation?

If by "everyone" you're tambout ME.. I've already been through this a million times, and still no one can step to me LOL

the legislation boils down to this: The Universal Health Care Plan will SAVE money by making the healthcare industry do what EVERYONE else has been forced to do --cut they damn costs, reduce overhead, go paperless, tighten up their game, quit whining and get competitive.

Will some doctors have to scale down from an Escalade to a Tahoe? Yes. Will some hospitals have to re-evaluate why one Tylenol capsule costs the patient $27? You betcha! [© S. Palin].

WHY? so the 30-40 million AMERICAN PEOPLE (your folks, and MINE) who currently don't have any insurance can CHOOSE to get it, instead of walking around raw dog with no coverage.

and GTFOH with that "oh I don't want to support lazy people on welfare with my tax dollars" bullcrap. We are ALREADY doing that. HAVE BEEN. For people who are not even working, and haven't contributed to taxes in YEARS.

its not the legislation that is harmful. It's the DELAY that is harmful to people who have exhausted their savings and are too sick to work, who need insurance RAHT NAH-- or have to face bankruptcy just to stay alive and healthy.

I'm not saying this is the perfect solution. One problem I do acknowledge about the bill, is that it doesn't address long-term spending too well. As it's written, there doesn't really seem to be an "end" or any limits placed on it, like say for example my medical insurance will cover me for $XX,XXX in a year's time, or for a lifetime. I see no such parameters in the bill as written, unless I missed it. I see room for abuse, in that regard. People like the OctoMom forcing out 20 or 30 kids on the taxpayer's dime.. that sort of thing.

[PrincessPratt]

dumbass

:lol:

He said dumbass! My what big words he uses.

[fusion]

Was that the only word you understood or are you not familiar with the concept of context?

[Cheech]

I guess the part that confuses me the most is that everyone wants to contest the guy that the OP referenced but fails to contest the actual legislation? I can understand questioning someone's credibility to say an article is biased. But read the damn legislation and see for yourself. It's not just "right wingers" not wanting to provide for apathetic people who do nothing to benefit society or themselves. The legislation is true government control of the medical industry. Check out page 30 of the legislation. Here, I'll actually quote it so I'm not misconstruing the wording for my benefit.

"(3) MEMBERSHIP.—The Health Benefits Advi-

sory Committee shall be composed of the following

members, in addition to the Surgeon General:

(A) 9 members who are not Federal em-

ployees or officers and who are appointed by

the President. "

Weird? So with 80 czars we already have who "aren't appointed or approved by Congress or Senate" we now have 9 people, directly appt. by the President, without regard to a Senate committee like you would see with the supreme court, who are in charge of deciding what is deemed medically necessary. The executive branch is quickly gaining control over every facet of our lives, (bank, auto, insurance, housing, and now medical). Make fun, say the sky is falling, blah blah , but fundamentally its wrong and you can't deny it.

I would really think you would be happy about this little facet, as it isn't that far from the status quo (which, by your arguments, you largely support with some peripheral changes like tort reform).

Since you are clearly conservative minded, and believe in the conservation of wealth to the individual vs government, let me ask you which of these two scenarios you would rather have.

1: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by the staff doctor (otherwise known as medical review, common for higher-dollar claims) who is paid by the insurance company, and who's corporate responsibiliy it is to make value to his shareholders by maximizing profits. For whatever reason, they initially deny your claim. The other guy has no insurance and you can't find him, so you are stuck with appealing your claim, AND the deductible if it's finally approved. You get better, and have a lighter wallet as a result.

2: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by a panel of doctors who answer to the government, who's responsibility it is (for purposes of this scenario) to provide healthcare to Americans. You get better.

[dmagicglock]

If by "everyone" you're tambout ME.. I've already been through this a million times, and still no one can step to me LOL

the legislation boils down to this: The Universal Health Care Plan will SAVE money by making the healthcare industry do what EVERYONE else has been forced to do --cut they damn costs, reduce overhead, go paperless, tighten up their game, quit whining and get competitive.

Will some doctors have to scale down from an Escalade to a Tahoe? Yes. Will some hospitals have to re-evaluate why one Tylenol capsule costs the patient $27? You betcha! [© S. Palin].

WHY? so the 30-40 million AMERICAN PEOPLE (your folks, and MINE) who currently don't have any insurance can CHOOSE to get it, instead of walking around raw dog with no coverage.

and GTFOH with that "oh I don't want to support lazy people on welfare with my tax dollars" bullcrap. We are ALREADY doing that. HAVE BEEN. For people who are not even working, and haven't contributed to taxes in YEARS.

its not the legislation that is harmful. It's the DELAY that is harmful to people who have exhausted their savings and are too sick to work, who need insurance RAHT NAH-- or have to face bankruptcy just to stay alive and healthy.

I'm not saying this is the perfect solution. One problem I do acknowledge about the bill, is that it doesn't address long-term spending too well. As it's written, there doesn't really seem to be an "end" or any limits placed on it, like say for example my medical insurance will cover me for $XX,XXX in a year's time, or for a lifetime. I see no such parameters in the bill as written, unless I missed it. I see room for abuse, in that regard. People like the OctoMom forcing out 20 or 30 kids on the taxpayer's dime.. that sort of thing.

save money? when has the government ever done anything more efficient than the private sector? Alas I will say this, if you're for the bill thats fine, but your reasoning is that of a socialist and our country wasn't founded on that. If you want socialism, maybe YOU should GTFO. And no 30-40 million American's aren't without coverage, that number is inflated with illegal immigrants. And no I don't want to pay for your healthcare or anyone else for that matter. You know what I did when I needed insurance? I got a damn job that provided it. Your argument is completely baseless with empty rhetoric and references no intelligent statistics or real facts. So maybe you should "tighten up yo' game" and step to that. Or maybe you could just read the bill like I mentioned earlier instead of making terrible assumptions. But I should "prolly know betta, people don't wanna take they damn time" and actually read the legislation.

[dmagicglock]

I would really think you would be happy about this little facet, as it isn't that far from the status quo (which, by your arguments, you largely support with some peripheral changes like tort reform).

Since you are clearly conservative minded, and believe in the conservation of wealth to the individual vs government, let me ask you which of these two scenarios you would rather have.

1: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by the staff doctor (otherwise known as medical review, common for higher-dollar claims) who is paid by the insurance company, and who's corporate responsibiliy it is to make value to his shareholders by maximizing profits. For whatever reason, they initially deny your claim. The other guy has no insurance and you can't find him, so you are stuck with appealing your claim, AND the deductible if it's finally approved. You get better, and have a lighter wallet as a result.

2: You go to the hospital after getting rear-ended by some asshole with no insurance who flees the scene. Your case ends up getting reviewed by a panel of doctors who answer to the government, who's responsibility it is (for purposes of this scenario) to provide healthcare to Americans. You get better.

you're missing the point, and your scenario makes a LOT of assumptions. Who's to say the government will cover it anymore than the private industry? The real point is that the President should not have direct executive authority over the private medical sector, or the banks, or the car industry etc... It removes the checks and balances from our system.

[magley64]

based on what i've read...

this is a "summary" from a guy named "fleckman"

it's full of spin and mis-information...take it with a grain of salt...

examples...

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Page 29 deals with cost-sharing. This does not ration healthcare, it sets maximums for the amount an individual has to pay for medical under an insurance plan ($5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family, with automatic increases based upon increases in the Consumer Price Index). Either this guy doesn’t know what cost-sharing is, or he is being intentionally misrepresentative.

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill – HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Talk about grasping at straws. Here’s the exact verbiage of the text: “Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related service.”

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

Nonresident aliens are already exempted from most taxes, including Social Security taxes, as they are generally not eligible for US Government services. And the taxes that are levied are only for certain incomes. Furthermore, many nonresident aliens don’t even preside in the United States, making it absurd that they should pay for services they won’t receive. However, this isn’t really a fairness issue; this is a tax policy issue which extends far beyond the subject at hand.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

This is not universal access. It only applies to certain information (which is already provided to the IRS) which can be used to determine if a person is financially capable of paying for insurance. And it’s not available for “all” Americans, only those whom have filed taxes. This is so that people who cannot afford insurance are not subjected to the, we’ll call it, “punishment tax”.

personally I'm NOT a proponent of the bill...just as I was not a proponent of Obama. I am a proponent of providing accurate information.(not directed at anyone on this site, there are a lot of people sending out emails with garbage information)

[ChickOn2]

If you want socialism, maybe YOU should GTFO.

Uhm no, honey, I'm a child/grandchild of real Americans... veterans of WWII, Viet Nam, Tuskegee Airmen, plus 10 generations born in Ohio (how many you got?) ... I'm here to stay, I'm afraid

And no 30-40 million American's aren't without coverage, that number is inflated with illegal immigrants.

Ok, I'm listening... how many Americans are without health care, that you know of, Mr. Man? 5, 10 people? 20? How many would it take to make it worth your little while?

Although.. The Center on Budget and Policy in Washington DC (a nonprofit, non-partisan organization) says in 2006, 46 million AMERICANS are uninsured. It got that information from the US Census Bureau. (do they count illegals? ionno!)

You know what I did when I needed insurance? I got a damn job that provided it.

That's great, if you're a fine, strapping young man like yourself. But what if you're 5 years old? What if your company laid you off? What if you're 92 and a half, in a wheelchair with 2 cataracts? Oh well, screw off? Pull yourself by your bootstraps, huh? Or worse yet, what if you HAD insurance but they wont cover your pre-exsting condition? You can't go "get a damn job" because your condition is STILL preexisting, but now you just took a pay cut. I'm sorry I just can't screw over my fellow American people like that. Not greedy and self-centered enough, I guess

[dmagicglock]

Uhm no, honey, I'm a child/grandchild of real Americans... veterans of WWII, Viet Nam, Tuskegee Airmen, plus 10 generations born in Ohio (how many you got?) ... I'm here to stay, I'm afraid

Okay convince yourself you're american by the blood that your ancestors shed not your contribution.

Ok, I'm listening... how many Americans are without health care, that you know of, Mr. Man? 5, 10 people? 20? How many would it take to make it worth your little while?

Although.. The Center on Budget and Policy in Washington DC (a nonprofit, non-partisan organization) says in 2006, 46 million AMERICANS are uninsured. It got that information from the US Census Bureau. (do they count illegals? ionno!)

The US Census Bureau doesn't ask if you're here legally, illegally, documented, undocumented, they just ask if you're living here. That being said...

There were 45.7 million uninsured people in the U.S. in 2007.

Of that amount, 6.4 million are the Medicaid undercount. These are people who are on one of two government health insurance programs, Medicaid or S-CHIP, but mistakenly (intentionally or not) tell the Census taker that they are uninsured. There is disagreement about the size of the Medicaid undercount. This figure is based on a 2005 analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services.

Another 4.3 million are eligible for free or heavily subsidized government health insurance (again, either Medcaid or SCHIP), but have not yet signed up. While these people are not pre-enrolled in a health insurance program and are therefore counted as uninsured, if they were to go to an emergency room (or a free clinic), they would be automatically enrolled in that program by the provider after receiving medical care. There’s an interesting philosophical question that I will skip about whether they are, in fact, uninsured, if technically they are protected from risk.

Another 9.3 million are non-citizens. I cannot break that down into documented vs. undocumented citizens.

Another 10.1 million do not fit into any of the above categories, and they have incomes more than 3X the poverty level. For a single person that means their income exceeded $30,600 in 2007, when the median income for a single male was $33,200 and for a female, $21,000. For a family of four, if your income was more than 3X the poverty level in 2007, you had $62,000 of income or more, and you were above the national median.

Of the remaining 15.6 million uninsured, 5 million are adults between ages 18 and 34 and without kids.

The remaining 10.6 million do not fit into any of the above categories, so they are:

U.S. citizens;

with income below 300% of poverty;

not on or eligible for a taxpayer-subsidized health insurance program;

and not a childless adult between age 18 and 34.

That's great, if you're a fine, strapping young man like yourself. But what if you're 5 years old? What if your company laid you off? What if you're 92 and a half, in a wheelchair with 2 cataracts? Oh well, screw off? Pull yourself by your bootstraps, huh? Or worse yet, what if you HAD insurance but they wont cover your pre-exsting condition? You can't go "get a damn job" because your condition is STILL preexisting, but now you just took a pay cut. I'm sorry I just can't screw over my fellow American people like that. Not greedy and self-centered enough, I guess

what if this, what if that? sometimes life sucks, and you deal with it. America is the land of opportunity. Not the land of handouts. We make opportunity for success available to everyone, so that you can go out on your own and get it. It doesn't mean we should hand it to you.

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. –George Bernard Shaw