Forums | MacLife

The Conservative wrote:

How the hell is the government is going to take care of the health care switch when they can't even take care of a billion dollar program? (Which I just heard they put another 2 to 4 billion into it.)

I would imagine any healthcare plan is going to be ongoing and part of the regular budget--not a one-shot authorization, like the 'cash for clunkers' program.

Sorry, this is a time in where the government needs to stay out of my way, and life.

As far as a "public option" goes, a majority of Americans disagree.



You wouldn't be forced to abandon your current coverage, however.

The Conservative wrote:

It dosent matter if you believe if it demands if you do or don't... The governtment can't handle a $1 billion dollar program, what makes you think they can handle a $1 trillion program?

Why do you think they "can't handle" the vehicle program?

A certain amount of money was allocated for it, the program was incredibly popular, and now the money that was allocated is exhausted.

What did they do wrong?

bratboy wrote:

The Conservative wrote:

It dosent matter if you believe if it demands if you do or don't... The governtment can't handle a $1 billion dollar program, what makes you think they can handle a $1 trillion program?

Why do you think they "can't handle" the vehicle program?

A certain amount of money was allocated for it, the program was incredibly popular, and now the money that was allocated is exhausted.

What did they do wrong?

Like everything else the government does, over promissed and under delivers.

The Conservative wrote:

Like everything else the government does, over promissed and under delivers.

Was it 'promised' to have unlimited funding?

I still wonder why nobody questions the military's constant need for cash and new gadgets. Dropping a few billions on pie-in-the-sky weapons programs doesn't seem to raise much ire. Same with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For less than the cost of the war in Iraq, we can all have health coverage - isn't that far more important? The fact that we're willing to throw gobs of money at hurting and killing people but balk at spending money to help people speaks volumes as to how out of whack our priorities and perceptions have become.

Congress is allocating more money to cash for clunkers because it was popular - not because it failed. If it had failed, the money would have gone unspent.

Yeeeeehaaaaa, put me on board!

Oh, smurf "them", I already have excellent coverage.

The argument here is that the gov't is too inept to run a healthcare program. In spite of the weak comparison to the CARS program, I'm inclined to agree with that assertion. I don't trust the gov't to do much of anything.

However, what conservatives always ignore in these anti-gov't healthcare arguments is what the reality of healthcare in America actually is.

Instead of gov't bureaucrats supposedly controlling treatment, we have corporate bureaucrats actually controlling treatment. Instead of maybe having long waits to get certain procedures, we have have people losing ALL of their coverage if they need one of those procedures. And now, instead of the gov't hypothetically running out of money to fund healthcare, we have corporations literally taking our personal income right up to the minute they find an excuse to deny us care, and then refusing to refund it even after they say someone has in fact been "ineligible" for care for months.

There might be philosophical reasons to oppose gov't run healthcare, but as a practical matter it's hard to believe that what we live with now is really better than what the gov't will offer -- especially in light of the examples provided by other Westernized countries.

Last edited by Mustapha Mond (2009-07-31 3:25 pm)

bratboy wrote:

The Conservative wrote:

Like everything else the government does, over promissed and under delivers.

Was it 'promised' to have unlimited funding?

No, but when does the government ever stay within budget, as shown they just shoved another 2 Billion into a program that was meant to only cost 1 Billion, out of the stimulus package... so something somewhere is not going to get 2 billion it was meant to.

The government can't be trusted... until it is controlled and not allowed to print any more money.

Mustapha Mond wrote:

The argument here is that the gov't is too inept to run a healthcare program. In spite of the weak comparison to the CARS program, I'm inclined to agree with that assertion. I don't trust the gov't to do much of anything.

Me neither, anything they have run so far has not worked... Medicare and Medcaid are both looking to go bankrupt in my time, so is Social Security...

Mustapha Mond wrote:

However, what conservatives always ignore in these anti-gov't healthcare arguments is what the reality of healthcare in America actually is.

Instead of gov't bureaucrats supposedly controlling treatment, we have corporate bureaucrats actually controlling treatment. Instead of maybe having long waits to get certain procedures, we have have people losing ALL of their coverage if they need one of those procedures. And now, instead of the gov't hypothetically running out of money to fund healthcare, we have corporations literally taking our personal income right up to the minute they find an excuse to deny us care, and then refusing to refund it even after they say someone has in fact been "ineligible" for care for months.

Can't disagree there, but with that the government will be the true big brother we have always feared when it comes to controlling our lives.

Now we have to worry about what age you are going to be to obtain a specific type of health care now? The problem I have here is that the government is more inept in controlling their spending than corporations are, we know the government wastes money, as does corporations.  The diffrence is that the corporations spend money they make, the government spends the money they take from us...

We pay 100+ Billion for health insurance, yet we still have to pay a monthly fee, etc to obtain health insurance, what is wrong with that picture?

Mustapha Mond wrote:

There might be philosophical reasons to oppose gov't run healthcare, but as a practical matter it's hard to believe that what we live with now is really better than what the gov't will offer -- especially in light of the examples provided by other Westernized countries.

We won't be getting the same government health care congress gets, actually congress refuses to have the health insurance that they are promising us.  As soon as the congress is willing to take the same thing that we are for health insurance then we know the bill is dangerous to pass.

As for other westernized countries, why are there more people coming to this country for care than visa versa?

Bat wrote:

Millionaires and billionaires can get fine care... at a great price.

Most of us aren't so well-heeled.

I drive people around that used Medicare and Medicaid... most of these people have no clue how much their methadone, psychological treatments, councilors, etc all cost us... as long as they get them free they don't care.

Why should it be any different if it becomes nationalized, they are going to get their treatment for free still? The other problem is giving 50 Million people (a good portion who don't deserve to be in this country in the first place) health insurance when people like myself that my company doesn't pay for health insurance, yet I make too much to get subsidized health insurance, but I don't make enough to pay for it because of bills such as food...

Health Care is too expensive to have foisted upon us... we are not getting improved health care, we are getting an old system that doesn't work foisted upon us.

Once I see real health care reform I am going to rebel against anything that congress tries to throw down our throats that utilize the old system as a foundation.

If you want to see how this is going to end like, look at California and Mass, both have health care for its people, and both are battling budgets that they can barely control. California is worse off, but Mass has had to remove programs from education, and other parts of the budget (except government) to pay for a budget, and forced health insurance that has nearly tripled since it first came out.

If Mass or California can't do it, then why should the rest of the country fair any better?

Last edited by The Conservative (2009-07-31 6:56 pm)

sturner wrote:

The health care plan doesn't require everyone to switch.

Will those who don't switch be taxed to pay for those who do?

Then it's time to start playing with matches or you're not getting your money's worth!

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

sturner wrote:

The health care plan doesn't require everyone to switch.

Will those who don't switch be taxed to pay for those who do?

Are you taxed for fire department services?  My house has never burnt down in 40 years.

That isn't an answer.
Will those who continue to stick with their existing plans be taxed to pay for those who don't?
It's a really simple question. Why are you hesitant to answer it directly?