Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   The House is about to socialize your medicine, and your life. (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32620)

Riot 11-10-2009 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god
that's inaccurate.

the amendment prohibits any government funded insurance plan from paying for an abortion. it has no effect on the private insurance market.

even plans that depend partially on government funding could offer riders for abortion coverage which you would pay for without assistance from any federal government source..

We need a third source. Not what I read regarding private insurance, or your ability to buy private plans, but that may have something to do with pools.

Edit: did some searching, and it does involve the exchanges - insurance companies will have to offer the same plan with and without abortion coverage in the exchanges, and as nearly all people in the exchanges will receive some insurance credits, so those people will not be able to purchase any policy with abortion included, thus the companies probably won't even offer it in the exchange pools. If you want to purchase it privately (if it is even offered to you in the exchange) that means that you must anticipate in advance you might need an elective abortion (??!! are they kidding?) Women whose employers purchase insurance through the exchanges will not be able to purchase policies that provide coverage for abortion.

In other words, it appears that only women who purchase their own private insurance policies, entirely outside any exchanges (the most expensive available) will be able to get coverage.

Abortion is legal. This amendment was a back-door pro-life circumvention of a legal right, that sets women's rights back decades if it sticks around.

Riot 11-10-2009 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
even if we take for granted your 'in the air figure' of 1% to be correct which it isn't. What's 1% of 1.2 trillion?

figuring a population in the US to be 300 million and 22.5 illegals here it's hard to believe only 1% of the 7% get treated? Or are they just healthier than your average American?

My figure was not "in the air", it has been in the press regarding the diversionary attempt to tie healthcare reform to illegal aliens. If you have something different, post it.

Illegal aliens tend not to seek out things that can get them discovered as such, such as hospitals, unless they have no choice.

Riot 11-10-2009 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
they don't have the same benefits. but how can you turn away an emergency, regardless of who they are? they're still a human being-you can't just let them lay outside the door, can you?

The answer is National Identification Cards, and if you don't have yours on your person when the ambulance picks you up, they stop CPR once you get to the hospital until they can accurately determine your citizenship status.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hi_im_god
that's inaccurate.

the amendment prohibits any government funded insurance plan from paying for an abortion. it has no effect on the private insurance market.

even plans that depend partially on government funding could offer riders for abortion coverage which you would pay for without assistance from any federal government source.

we've lived with the hyde amendment for decades. i'm not saying it's the greatest thing but it's not worth trashing the health care bill over this.

All those women who plan their yearly abortions in advance will surely be grateful for this clarification.

dellinger63 11-10-2009 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
My figure was not "in the air", it has been in the press regarding the diversionary attempt to tie healthcare reform to illegal aliens. If you have something different, post it.

Illegal aliens tend not to seek out things that can get them discovered as such, such as hospitals, unless they have no choice.


just curious where was this in the press? You consistently come up w/facts never citing a source other than your personal recall. And as I said even if your number is correct, 1% of 1.2 trillion is 12 billion so I'd suggest the 1% figure to be meant as a diversionary attempt to include them in healthcare citing the insignificant sounding 1% figure instead of stating the true cost of 12 billion. When illegals have no fear of going to the hospital surely their visits will increase and with 22.5 million in the country that 12 billion could easily grow by leaps and bounds.

Plus check out the savings, decrease of classroom size and increase of jobs we'd experience by doing nothing but following the laws already on the books and sending them home instead of to work, the hospital, school or prison.


http://immigrationcounters.com/

Coach Pants 11-10-2009 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
All those women who plan their yearly abortions in advance will surely be grateful for this clarification.

Well they could always add euthanasia into the bill for dumb broads who don't take the rider option. That would cut down on the need to protect dumb fuc.ks in the future.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
Well they could always add euthanasia into the bill for dumb broads who don't take the rider option. That would cut down on the need to protect dumb fuc.ks in the future.

Well that's what happens in things like this -- people wind up helping subsidize procedures for other people.

And abortion is a legal medical procedure, and as long as it is, it shouldn't take a separate rider. I'm not particularly keen on having my tax dollars go to plans that would support Michelle Duggar as she continues to use her uterus as a clown car, but it's part of the bargain, as long as it's legal.

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 09:35 AM

it would be pitiful for our tax dollars to support abortion no matter how pro choice anyone is. only for a rape victim or similar circumstance should it be okay for tax dollars to pay for it.

women who are too stupid to use protection should either pay an arm and a leg for an abortion.. get their "baby daddy" to shell out the $.. or go the adoption rout. Its 2009, there shouldnt be unwanted pregnancies. some people are too irresponsible and then want someone else to take care of the problem.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32
it would be pitiful for our tax dollars to support abortion no matter how pro choice anyone is. only for a rape victim or similar circumstance should it be okay for tax dollars to pay for it.

women who are too stupid to use protection should either pay an arm and a leg for an abortion.. get their "baby daddy" to shell out the $.. or go the adoption rout. Its 2009, there shouldnt be unwanted pregnancies. some people are too irresponsible and then want someone else to take care of the problem.

Ok, well if you get warned that you're at risk for diabetes and don't change your habits to lose weight, exercise more and reduce your sugar and refined carb intake, I don't want my dollars to go towards helping you once you get sick. I think you should be sick all the time if you can't afford it because you're too irresponsible to do your part.

If you cut your finger off with a saw while doing work to improve your home, I also don't want to help pay for that, since you should have been more careful and not greedy to want your home to be nicer. You should just be responsible and not want your insurance to help pay for your hosptial care because you did it to yourself.

And for that matter, why pay for pregnant women and their care from insurance money either? It was their choice, and if they didn't want to accept full financial responsibility, why should I help pay for the care that they brought on themselves?

Point being, it's bulls*hit to try to deny legal medical procedures to someone else while enjoying different ones for yourself.

Coach Pants 11-10-2009 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, well if you get warned that you're at risk for diabetes and don't change your habits to lose weight, exercise more and reduce your sugar and refined carb intake, I don't want my dollars to go towards helping you once you get sick. I think you should be sick all the time if you can't afford it because you're too irresponsible to do your part.

If you cut your finger off with a saw while doing work to improve your home, I also don't want to help pay for that, since you should have been more careful and not greedy to want your home to be nicer. You should just be responsible and not want your insurance to help pay for your hosptial care because you did it to yourself.

And for that matter, why pay for pregnant women and their care from insurance money either? It was their choice, and if they didn't want to accept full financial responsibility, why should I help pay for the care that they brought on themselves?

Point being, it's bulls*hit to try to deny legal medical procedures to someone else while enjoying different ones for yourself.

I agree with all of that. Let them pay out of pocket or take out private insurance to cover those expenses.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
I agree with all of that. Let them pay out of pocket or take out private insurance to cover those expenses.

And as a "socialist" (!!!!) supporter of national health care, I think it comes with the territory, that you don't get to pick and choose what you think should be allowed even if it's entirely legal, while enjoying legal medical care for yourself that others may find objectionable or totally your own fault for doing it to yourself.

Coach Pants 11-10-2009 10:27 AM

Private insurance companies should have the freedom to decide what they will offer.

Maybe then the masses will realize that it isn't the evil insurance companies who sent them a $15,000 bill for a simple outpatient surgery. And maybe, just maybe, they'll realize the real enemies are the attorneys who have crippled the doctor's and hospitals with yellow tape and fears of literal anal rape in a courtroom.

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, well if you get warned that you're at risk for diabetes and don't change your habits to lose weight, exercise more and reduce your sugar and refined carb intake, I don't want my dollars to go towards helping you once you get sick. I think you should be sick all the time if you can't afford it because you're too irresponsible to do your part.

If you cut your finger off with a saw while doing work to improve your home, I also don't want to help pay for that, since you should have been more careful and not greedy to want your home to be nicer. You should just be responsible and not want your insurance to help pay for your hosptial care because you did it to yourself.

And for that matter, why pay for pregnant women and their care from insurance money either? It was their choice, and if they didn't want to accept full financial responsibility, why should I help pay for the care that they brought on themselves?

Point being, it's bulls*hit to try to deny legal medical procedures to someone else while enjoying different ones for yourself.


:rolleyes:

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
And as a "socialist" (!!!!) supporter of national health care, I think it comes with the territory, that you don't get to pick and choose what you think should be allowed even if it's entirely legal, while enjoying legal medical care for yourself that others may find objectionable or totally your own fault for doing it to yourself.


I really dont think you will be a supporter of socialist medicine if it actually happened. crappiest care around. Try living in a country with socialzed medicine and you will see.

oh yeah, and expect 40-50% of your paycheck going to the feds if you want socialized care.

dellinger63 11-10-2009 10:50 AM

How do I apply to become an illegal alien?

jms62 11-10-2009 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
Private insurance companies should have the freedom to decide what they will offer.

Maybe then the masses will realize that it isn't the evil insurance companies who sent them a $15,000 bill for a simple outpatient surgery. And maybe, just maybe, they'll realize the real enemies are the attorneys who have crippled the doctor's and hospitals with yellow tape and fears of literal anal rape in a courtroom.

:tro:

In your usual eloquent fashion you nailed it.

Riot 11-10-2009 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63
just curious where was this in the press? You consistently come up w/facts never citing a source other than your personal recall.
And as I said even if your number is correct, 1% of 1.2 trillion is 12 billion so I'd suggest the 1% figure to be meant as a diversionary attempt to include them in healthcare citing the insignificant sounding 1% figure ...

Seems that 1% is overstated according to some figures. Too many. How about 14% of 43.9 million uninsured are non-citizens? Which is a little over 6 million people we are talking about. Out of 330 million.

See Brad Wright's article today about the "Po' white south" are the uninsured at Huffington Post website. He quotes the Urban Institutes policy briefs numbers involved in the healthcare debate in his article.

Riot 11-10-2009 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
Private insurance companies should have the freedom to decide what they will offer.
.

Private insurance companies do exactly that. They can even take it back after they sign a contract to do so and you've paid them. They can even take it back after they have said they would pay. They can drop an insured at any time, at their whim, as there are no laws to hold them to their side of the contract. The majority of bankruptcies in America are due to insured people paying for healthcare (google, Dell, it's everywhere).

In this, the wealthiest and most generous of countries, where all are created equal, we have thousands of our citizens getting extremely ill and dying every year because they cannot get regular basic health coverage, or they are ill and their insurance company pulls the rug out from under them and they lose their savings and their house and all they worked for their entire life.

And that is why decades have been spent trying to get health care reform instituted. Thank goodness there is a real chance of that.

Riot 11-10-2009 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32
I really dont think you will be a supporter of socialist medicine if it actually happened. crappiest care around. Try living in a country with socialzed medicine and you will see.

oh yeah, and expect 40-50% of your paycheck going to the feds if you want socialized care.

Nothing in the healthcare reform bills are any more "socialized" than current Medicare.

Riot 11-10-2009 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62
:tro:

In your usual eloquent fashion you nailed it.

Then you guys will be happy that tort reform and malpractice arbitration improvements are in the House bill.

jms62 11-10-2009 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Then you guys will be happy that tort reform and malpractice arbitration improvements are in the House bill.

43% of Congress are lawyers. To think Tort Reform will have any bite is like letting the foxes be in charge of securing the hen house.

Danzig 11-10-2009 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
The answer is National Identification Cards, and if you don't have yours on your person when the ambulance picks you up, they stop CPR once you get to the hospital until they can accurately determine your citizenship status.

and people have told me i'm cold.....

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Nothing in the healthcare reform bills are any more "socialized" than current Medicare.


I know.. I was responding to bwspenser

Coach Pants 11-10-2009 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Private insurance companies do exactly that. They can even take it back after they sign a contract to do so and you've paid them. They can even take it back after they have said they would pay. They can drop an insured at any time, at their whim, as there are no laws to hold them to their side of the contract. The majority of bankruptcies in America are due to insured people paying for healthcare (google, Dell, it's everywhere).

In this, the wealthiest and most generous of countries, where all are created equal, we have thousands of our citizens getting extremely ill and dying every year because they cannot get regular basic health coverage, or they are ill and their insurance company pulls the rug out from under them and they lose their savings and their house and all they worked for their entire life.

And that is why decades have been spent trying to get health care reform instituted. Thank goodness there is a real chance of that.

And 75 percent of bankruptcies due to medical bills were by people who didn't have health insurance. Excuse me while I break out the world's smallest violin for you and the other liberals.

Honu 11-10-2009 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, well if you get warned that you're at risk for diabetes and don't change your habits to lose weight, exercise more and reduce your sugar and refined carb intake, I don't want my dollars to go towards helping you once you get sick. I think you should be sick all the time if you can't afford it because you're too irresponsible to do your part.

If you cut your finger off with a saw while doing work to improve your home, I also don't want to help pay for that, since you should have been more careful and not greedy to want your home to be nicer. You should just be responsible and not want your insurance to help pay for your hosptial care because you did it to yourself.

And for that matter, why pay for pregnant women and their care from insurance money either? It was their choice, and if they didn't want to accept full financial responsibility, why should I help pay for the care that they brought on themselves?

Point being, it's bulls*hit to try to deny legal medical procedures to someone else while enjoying different ones for yourself.


There are alot of ways to get high blood pressure , diabetes , and cut off your finger , but there is only ONE way to get pregnant and about 10 ways not to. If the government wants to do something to help people who dont want babies they should implant a chip in all baby boys born making them sterile and not take it out until they get married. Problem solved.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu
There are alot of ways to get high blood pressure , diabetes , and cut off your finger , but there is only ONE way to get pregnant and about 10 ways not to. If the government wants to do something to help people who dont want babies they should implant a chip in all baby boys born making them sterile and not take it out until they get married. Problem solved.

Ok, but of the many ways you can get high blood pressure, diabetes, or cut off your finger, should only the accidental, uncontrollable ones be covered by insurance plans? Two drivers in a car accident -- both go to the hospital, only the one who didn't cause the accident should have insurance cover it?

And why insurance coverage for pregnant women then? There is, after all, only one way to get pregnant. Their fault, let them pay for it.

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, but of the many ways you can get high blood pressure, diabetes, or cut off your finger, should only the accidental, uncontrollable ones be covered by insurance plans? Two drivers in a car accident -- both go to the hospital, only the one who didn't cause the accident should have insurance cover it?

And why insurance coverage for pregnant women then? There is, after all, only one way to get pregnant. Their fault, let them pay for it.


I think there happens to be a difference between planning (or not even planning) to have a baby and actually having the child and caring for the child than being reckless and having unprotected sex and then having taxpayers pay for your unborn to be vaccuumed out into a trash bag.

But hey, thats just my opinion.

Honu 11-10-2009 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, but of the many ways you can get high blood pressure, diabetes, or cut off your finger, should only the accidental, uncontrollable ones be covered by insurance plans? Two drivers in a car accident -- both go to the hospital, only the one who didn't cause the accident should have insurance cover it?

And why insurance coverage for pregnant women then? There is, after all, only one way to get pregnant. Their fault, let them pay for it.


Driving a car and driving a penis are alot diffirent , wouldnt you say ?
Sometimes you lose control of your car thru no one's fault , can that be said about a penis?

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu
Driving a car and driving a penis are alot diffirent , wouldnt you say ?
Sometimes you lose control of your car thru no one's fault , can that be said about a penis?


I'm pretty sure the penis acts as the driver and the car. I'm sure its easy to lose control and have it be the penis' fault.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu
Driving a car and driving a penis are alot diffirent , wouldnt you say ?
Sometimes you lose control of your car thru no one's fault , can that be said about a penis?

Ok, pregnant women. Get insurance to pay for their pre-natal care or no? I mean, they clearly drove a penis straight towards the only way to get pregnant.

How about not heeding a doctor's advice to try to avoid becoming diabetic? You either follow directions or you don't.

Insurance pays for that? Or no?

If I intentionally cut my finger off right now, I could go to the ER and get my insurance to pay for it. Much like intentionally driving a penis, so to speak.

Honu 11-10-2009 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32
I'm pretty sure the penis acts as the driver and the car. I'm sure its easy to lose control and have it be the penis' fault.


Well then they need to put a "boot " on the penis so it cant be driven .

Honu 11-10-2009 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brianwspencer
Ok, pregnant women. Get insurance to pay for their pre-natal care or no? I mean, they clearly drove a penis straight towards the only way to get pregnant.

How about not heeding a doctor's advice to try to avoid becoming diabetic? You either follow directions or you don't.

Insurance pays for that? Or no?

If I intentionally cut my finger off right now, I could go to the ER and get my insurance to pay for it. Much like intentionally driving a penis, so to speak.


Things like diabetes and heart disease and such can be passed on thru gene's but getting knocked up is passed thru the zipper and no I dont think the federal government should pay for it , You who agree should donate your money to the next kill a baby for no good reason except that Im a fu cking selffish nimrod and I have no self control.

brianwspencer 11-10-2009 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu
Things like diabetes and heart disease and such can be passed on thru gene's but getting knocked up is passed thru the zipper and no I dont think the federal government should pay for it , You who agree should donate your money to the next kill a baby for no good reason except that Im a fu cking selffish nimrod and I have no self control.

Can you rephrase that in English?

And you seem awfully selective about what sorts of self-induced things should be covered by insurance. Sure some diabetic people are genetically at risk...and some aren't. I'd submit that you'd need to make that distinction if you don't want to cover perfectly legal elective abortions in this health plan while covering all sorts of other situations people put themselves into.

But again, what you won't answer is whether or not you think that pregnant women's prenatal care should be covered by insurance, but not abortion....you get to the same spot the same way, so what gives?

Riot 11-10-2009 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62
43% of Congress are lawyers. To think Tort Reform will have any bite is like letting the foxes be in charge of securing the hen house.

The foxes have been ordering their hens not to allow any healthcare reform whatsoever.

Riot 11-10-2009 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig
and people have told me i'm cold.....

Geesh ... did I need to use the :rolleyes: ???

Riot 11-10-2009 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
And 75 percent of bankruptcies due to medical bills were by people who didn't have health insurance. Excuse me while I break out the world's smallest violin for you and the other liberals.

Sorry, your facts are backwards.

Riot 11-10-2009 03:49 PM

Does it matter to anyone that federal funds haven't been used to fund elective abortions for the last 35 years or so, and that nobody is asking the federal government to fund them now, in any of the healthcare reform provisions? :)

What has been introduced in the amendment from "The Family" Senator from C-street, in his self-rightous religious zeal, is trying to implement and backdoor more restrictions than the current law provides for.

Fortunately today, Sen. Boxer said she knows there are enough votes in the Senate to block it. How she's gonna manage that, I don't know.

Coach Pants 11-10-2009 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Sorry, your facts are backwards.

One of them, yeah. 75 percent had insurance.

You, on the other hand, conveniently left out that 60 percent figure includes households with medical bills totaling more than 10 percent of family income. And only 29% cited medical bills as the main cause.

Now take away the people out of those useless statistics that had other bills outside of their mortgage, and the stupid god damn statistics are rendered useless and once again I am basically right and you are wrong.

Because lets face it if I were wrong then more than likely you would end up with a major medical problem and probably go bankrupt and die. And really I'm not that lucky.

Riot 11-10-2009 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coach Pants
One of them, yeah. 75 percent had insurance.

You, on the other hand, conveniently left out that 60 percent figure includes households with medical bills totaling more than 10 percent of family income. And only 29% cited medical bills as the main cause.

Now take away the people out of those useless statistics that had other bills outside of their mortgage, and the stupid god damn statistics are rendered useless and once again I am basically right and you are wrong.

Because lets face it if I were wrong then more than likely you would end up with a major medical problem and probably go bankrupt and die. And really I'm not that lucky.

Yes, talking about 2007, medical bills totaling more than 10% of family income can bankrupt you, and it did - for 61% of 2007 bankruptcies. And 78% of those bankrupted people had health insurance, but were bankrupted anyway.

Sorry you think the statistics are useless. So proud of you, though, that you've gone from swearing and cursing at me to simply wishing I would die. I guess that means you're growing up :tro:

Antitrust32 11-10-2009 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot
Yes, talking about 2007, medical bills totaling more than 10% of family income can bankrupt you, and it did - for 61% of 2007 bankruptcies. And 78% of those bankrupted people had health insurance, but were bankrupted anyway.

Sorry you think the statistics are useless. So proud of you, though, that you've gone from swearing and cursing at me to simply wishing I would die. I guess that means you're growing up :tro:


I dont want you to die or even get a cough. and i know your post wasnt directed to me.

But, before I die, I just want to hear (or see) you say (or type)

"My name is Riot, and I am a full blooded liberal."

please please please?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.