2010 Could Easily Be Disastrous For Democrats

[Admiral Yi]

I would donate blood but apparently mine is poisonous.

Do you have the hiv Grabon?

[garbon]

Do you have the hiv Grabon?

No, but it does contain traces of man on man sex.

[dps]

Apparantly, whatever giving Yi does, it doesn't include his blood.

[derspiess]

I would donate blood but apparently mine is poisonous.

You miss out on: free soda & cheese crackers

[Strix]

Or fire services, police services, armed defense, the rural electrification project, etc.  Even putting a civil court system into place is helping your neighbor.

Except those things help the individual as well as society.

The United States has a health care system already in place for the poor. It's called Medicaid and tax payers already pay a lot of money into that system. The problem isn't Medicaid (though it could use reform and streamlining) but how sky high medical prices have gotten. Doctors don't like to accept Medicaid because the government places restrictions on what it will or will not pay for. Obama and the Democrats are just trying to by-pass Medicaid and it's restrictions by passing the cost of medical bills on to the tax payers directly with "Universal Health Care" instead of fixing the insurance industry.

Obama just needs to....

A) Address the out of control pricing and gouging by Insurance companies in the US.

B) Address the out of control gouging and pricing by the Medical industry.

C) Reform and streamline Medicaid (perhaps changing it so that everyone who cannot afford health insurance besides the poor can belong).

If he addresses and corrected many of the problems with all three of these things than the government would end up SAVING money instead of creating a monster that would be the current plan for "Universal Health Care".

[ulmont]

Or fire services, police services, armed defense, the rural electrification project, etc.  Even putting a civil court system into place is helping your neighbor.

Except those things help the individual as well as society.

As would a universal health care system.

[Strix]

As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

[ulmont]

As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

I think you're underestimating how many people get helped by the laws against rescission and for mandatory pooling.

[Strix]

As would a universal health care system.

How would a universal health care system help me? It would hurt the majority of people in the United States who would be forced to pay money into a system they would not use.

I think you're underestimating how many people get helped by the laws against rescission and for mandatory pooling.

Mandatory pooling = socialism

And, in this particular case, if the social contract between the insurance companies and medical industry went through rescission than I have no doubts that a more fair and equatable system could be created. I think, in fact, that this is the only way that health care can undergo any meaningful reform in this country.

Obama and the Democrats current vision of universal health care is nothing more than building a house of cards on the sand.

[ulmont]

Mandatory pooling = socialism

No.  Single payer is socialism.

Rescission is the practice of, when you submit a claim to your insurance for something nasty (i.e., the reason you have the insurance), they go back over your initial application, claim you failed to disclose a preexisting condition, and drop you.  In numerous instances, the rescission has been based on a family member's application, not even the covered person.  In numerous instances, the policy holders say they disclosed what the insurance company ostensibly dropped them for withholding.

[Strix]

Mandatory pooling = socialism

No.  Single payer is socialism.

Rescission is the practice of, when you submit a claim to your insurance for something nasty (i.e., the reason you have the insurance), they go back over your initial application, claim you failed to disclose a preexisting condition, and drop you.  In numerous instances, the rescission has been based on a family member's application, not even the covered person.  In numerous instances, the policy holders say they disclosed what the insurance company ostensibly dropped them for withholding.

And how is single payer socialism?

I was unsure of the context in which you were using rescission because it was not relevant to the discussion. Your example still isn't relevant to the conversation because what you describe has nothing to do with universal health care and everything to do with health care reform.

[Neil]

Socialism in the health industry is good.

[ulmont]

And how is single payer socialism?

It's a significant step closer to having the government directly owning the means of production?

Your example still isn't relevant to the conversation because what you describe has nothing to do with universal health care and everything to do with health care reform.

I think you are nitpicking a bit here, but for a directly relevant example:  universal health care -> less emergency room visits as primary care -> better emergency room care for all in true emergencies.

[garbon]

I think you are nitpicking a bit here, but for a directly relevant example:  universal health care -> less emergency room visits as primary care -> better emergency room care for all in true emergencies.

Assuming, of course, that we suddenly see a huge rise in the number of pcps. Those bitches already be overbooked with appointments.

[Eddie Teach]

Assuming, of course, that we suddenly see a huge rise in the number of pcps. Those bitches already be overbooked with appointments.

Just because people can figure out what an acronym stands for doesn't always mean it's useful.