Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 What should be done is everyone is temporarily sterilized at birth. 462076[/snapback] That's not an altogether bad idea. Make it like a national Bris.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I do the same as you. The answer would be yes. However since you have an insurance card they would not need to check it as long as the insurance covers you, wouldn't they? 463295[/snapback] So everyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer goes on the list, and if they have insurance through another source they hope no one checks the list and denies them care? Good plan.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 So everyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer goes on the list, and if they have insurance through another source they hope no one checks the list and denies them care? Good plan. 463753[/snapback] Apparently there's something in the Beltway water that makes nearly everyone dumber.
VABills Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 So everyone who doesn't get insurance through their employer goes on the list, and if they have insurance through another source they hope no one checks the list and denies them care? Good plan. 463753[/snapback] No, you don't check the list if you have a validated insurance card. Are you that dense. You only go on the list if you are reported as turning down insurance from your employer. Actually at our work we are required to take it, $60 a month, unless you can show proof you have other insurance. Since we have family coverage due, since we have a child, under my wifes and it is 10 times better then what my insurance covers. Hence I am under hers and mine is opted out. Too bad they don't pay us what the premiums are if we opt out.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 No, you don't check the list if you have a validated insurance card. Are you that dense. You only go on the list if you are reported as turning down insurance from your employer. Actually at our work we are required to take it, $60 a month, unless you can show proof you have other insurance. Since we have family coverage due, since we have a child, under my wifes and it is 10 times better then what my insurance covers. Hence I am under hers and mine is opted out. Too bad they don't pay us what the premiums are if we opt out. 463777[/snapback] I'm sure that'd be almost as successful as voter registration. Next.
VABills Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 I'm sure that'd be almost as successful as voter registration. Next. 463781[/snapback] You know it's easy to criticize. Any suggestions Comrade Darin? Or are you going to continue being a prick?
todd Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 My only comment is that Socialism sucks. This is socialism. Wegmans, for example, creates a great environment for employees WITHOUT unions and WITHOUT government-mandated health care. I have mixed emotions, and would like to hear some views on this topic. I am thinking that legislation such as this will discourage workers in places such as Wal-Mart from unionizing. On the other hand, health care is one of the many items that Wal-Mart deprives them of, and it costs taxpayers instead. What do you guys think? Boycott Wal-Mart 457469[/snapback]
todd Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Very good points. Adding health insurance is going to raise the price of goods. People do not realize that they are the ones who will be paying for this. I guess they theought the "rich" will be paying for it. Government should NEVER be involved in forcing companies to supply health insurance. The market dictates salaries and benefits. Nobody is forcing people to work at Walmart. If they do not like the salary or the benefits package, try getting another job. You control your destiny, not the federal government. If you are relying on someone else to get you what you need, it is your fault, not the government. 457568[/snapback] Good post. I think everyone should read a little Ayn Rand as part of their high school curriculum. A little personal responsibility and capitalism would go a long way in making this country better.
todd Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 There are books written about how unfair to workers Wal-Mart is said to be. They are said to operate on the very fringes of legality when it comes to discrimination, using illegal aliens, punishing workers who want to unionize, etc. They have been known to order workers to change their days off in lieu of receiving overtime pay. They closed a store in Canada for voting to unionize. In Suffolk County, they lost a 10 million dollar discrimination suit. I think we both are aware of their reputation. I actually think this is a GOOD thing. I think WalMart is courageous to ensure that they are able to keep prices low by refusing to allow unions. Truthfully, I think that it is the job of organized labor to attack Wal-Mart, not that of the government. I don't see why they don't simply call for a national boycott, with informational picket lines. 457629[/snapback] Maybe because they will realize that people would laugh at them for doing so. Andy Stern of SEIU says he wants to devote more funds to organizing workers. He was joined by Hoffa Jr. of the Teamsters, and 2 other large international unions. I guess we will soon know how serious they are. In the meantime, it IS nice to see Wal-Mart getting some heat. 457629[/snapback] And where do they get these funds?
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 My only comment is that Socialism sucks. This is socialism. Wegmans, for example, creates a great environment for employees WITHOUT unions and WITHOUT government-mandated health care. 463820[/snapback] And if all employers treated their employees like Wegman's, we wouldn't need to mandate that large employers provide health insurance. Unfortunately, not many do and the cost of medical treatment for many of these people falls on Medicaid which ends up being paid by taxpayers. It looks like we have 4 alternatives: 1. Companies voluntarily cover employees 2. Companies are mandated to cover employees 3. Society pays for them via Medicaid and force hospitals to treat for free 4. Hospitals and doctors refuse to treat uninsured people If companies don't voluntarily provide insurance for their employees, we are stuck with one of the other alternatives. Right now, we have chosen #3, and we have seen state and county budgets balloon due to Medicaid costs. You may not like mandated benefits, but it is preferable IMO to the current system of Medicaid providing medical care.
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 You know it's easy to criticize. Any suggestions Comrade Darin? Or are you going to continue being a prick? 463784[/snapback] How about getting the Federal Government completely out of the healthcare system. That'd likely drop the cost of health care by a staggering amount. Or we could keep suggesting things that have failed in over and over again but haven't been tried in health care, where they'll certainly overcome their obvious shortfalls. If you think taking the government out of health care makes me a "Comrade", you should slap your teacher for leaving out a pretty important couple of thousand (or 75 in regular) years of fairly basic history.
VABills Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 How about getting the Federal Government completely out of the healthcare system. That'd likely drop the cost of health care by a staggering amount. Or we could keep suggesting things that have failed in over and over again but haven't been tried in health care, where they'll certainly overcome their obvious shortfalls. If you think taking the government out of health care makes me a "Comrade", you should slap your teacher for leaving out a pretty important couple of thousand (or 75 in regular) years of fairly basic history. 463966[/snapback] Okay, so what do you do with the people who show up at the hospital with a kid, broken arm, no money and no insurance?
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Okay, so what do you do with the people who show up at the hospital with a kid, broken arm, no money and no insurance? 463985[/snapback] What would I do? Nothing. I'm not a doctor or medical professional of any type - though I am trained in first aid and CPR. I said FEDERAL government. FEDERAL.
VABills Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 What would I do? Nothing. I'm not a doctor or medical professional of any type - though I am trained in first aid and CPR. I said FEDERAL government. FEDERAL. 463991[/snapback] If the feds get out of the business of medical care (medicaid and medicare), then what is a private hospital supposed to do in that situation?
Terry Tate Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 I am not saying anything at all about how that should be done or arguing for government involvment. You are automatically converting "if we are not going to deny treatment we must find a way to pay for it" into an argument for national health care or some other massive government involvement. Thanks for letting me off the hook for the killing children thing - for the moment, at least. I am responding as I do because every solution presented so far involves the government, either in passing new laws or assuming control of choices for people (law to force employers to provide insurance, forced coverage and a national insurance register, all-out nationalized health care, etc). The reason for this is because there is simply no solution to provide health care for everyone who doesn't have it - government solutions are the only ones that would even come close (I hope it's recognized they too, would fail), and the cost would not be only in dollars. My solution is to do what I can when I can. I volunteer and donate my blood, time, money, food, clothing, furniture, appliances and other goods to nationwide and local charities and fundraisers. As much good as they do, I understand they cannot possibly help everyone. My answer to government intervention is still I'm very sorry, but no. More government is not the solution, it's the problem.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 I'm sure that'd be almost as successful as voter registration. Next. 463781[/snapback] Kind of the point I was trying to get at. I'm sure such a system where someone has to ask for proof of insurance THEN check a database to see if you're eligible for care, that requires employers to report who refuses to sign up for health insurance to a central data store, will work PERFECTLY with no problems of timeliness, accuracy, latency...or just simple human stupidity. And I'm sure the additional layer of bureaucracy will be cost-effective and reduce health care costs overall, too.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Kind of the point I was trying to get at. I'm sure such a system where someone has to ask for proof of insurance THEN check a database to see if you're eligible for care, that requires employers to report who refuses to sign up for health insurance to a central data store, will work PERFECTLY with no problems of timeliness, accuracy, latency...or just simple human stupidity. And I'm sure the additional layer of bureaucracy will be cost-effective and reduce health care costs overall, too. 464041[/snapback] There are companies who do this now. At these companies all employees HAVE to join the health insurance plan UNLESS they can demonstrate alternative coverage to the company. Lots of companies do this now without any federal bureacracy. Possibly another way to get more companies to cover all employees would be to eliminate the federal tax deduction for employee health benefits UNLESS the company offers benefits to all employees. This would make more companies "volunteer" to cover all employees.
Wacka Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Like I said earlier and was ignored. To lower health care costs DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGAL ALIENS. One of the biggest hospitals in San Jose, CA went out of business because of the costs of having to treat ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Alaska Darin Posted October 4, 2005 Posted October 4, 2005 Like I said earlier and was ignored. To lower health care costs DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGAL ALIENS. One of the biggest hospitals in San Jose, CA went out of business because of the costs of having to treat ILLEGAL ALIENS. 464199[/snapback] Neither party has the stones to do that, especially the one currently in charge.
Bill from NYC Posted October 4, 2005 Author Posted October 4, 2005 Like I said earlier and was ignored. To lower health care costs DEPORT ALL THE ILLEGAL ALIENS. One of the biggest hospitals in San Jose, CA went out of business because of the costs of having to treat ILLEGAL ALIENS. 464199[/snapback] Politicians as a group welcome illegal aliens. Why would they deport them because of a little thing such as a closed hospital, which deprives Americans of jobs and medical care? The following is another example of how many pols will simply spit in the very face of the law. Illegal? No problem. Use our social services!
Recommended Posts