Forums | MacLife

Aaron_R wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

Specifically why are the other 75% not eligible?

Anyone going to answer this?

Key thing to remember is homeless ≠ a bum. Homeless from loosing your home but you are still employed, you and your family are SOL.

Losing  your home does not mean you lose your employer provided health insurance.

Aaron_R wrote:

resedit wrote:

Losing  your home does not mean you lose your employer provided health insurance.

Maybe for a few lucky families where the earner has a full time job. What about all the families that work multiple part-time jobs? I'm sure if I went to dig up the numbers, if they exist yet, on all the recent forecloses that happened and are still happening the numbers would point to the latter scenario. In which case i'd most certainly forgo private insurance if I had a plan, for food and a possible means of shelter.

Their lack of health insurance is not related to them being homeless.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Losing  your home does not mean you lose your employer provided health insurance.

...what about losing your job?

I'm not opposed to those who genuinely can not afford health insurance from receiving government (state preferred, but I wouldn't bitch at federal) assistance to provide insurance.

I've stated that numerous times. You do not seem to be listening.

resedit wrote:

Their lack of health insurance is not related to them being homeless.

You're right, who gives a rat's ass about all the homeless people and aliments and diseases of which are 3 times likelier to get than a person with a home, or 6 time likelier to develop an mental illness (NHCHC). Screw them. Let's just stick with your purposed Medicaid coverage plan and hope that the few remaining public heath centers don't get cost strained much more to the point of having to shut their doors on them. Because hey, being homeless and not being insured to get health coverage doesn't make your life less stressful as you try to fulfill your basic requirements. Of which healthcare obviously isn't one until their minor alignments which could have been treated early or possibly prevented all together turn into more serious major problems that are more time and cost consuming to treat, so they fill the local heath center which hopefully didn't shut yet. Seems like a solid plan to me.

Last edited by Aaron_R (2009-08-01 10:45 am)

Not all doctors make that much.

It's also worth noting that introducing socialized medicine to America, whether the Swiss model or anything else, would require legislation of at least 1,000 pages.

isaly wrote:

hey resedit,

How much tax do you pay toward the health care you get? If memory serves, none.

Your memory is your imagination.

I don't openly disclose my income or what taxes I pay, but I own my home and property tax is exactly where a good portion of the funds that pay for the health care I receive (as someone who is not allowed to buy insurance due to a pre-condition) comes from.

What point are you trying to make?

isaly wrote:

hey resedit,

How much tax do you pay toward the health care you get? If memory serves, none. Are you upset that that windfall might end by the graces of health insurance reform for all?

How sad.

If you don't like it, perhaps you should consider relocating to another country with no public health insurance scheme. . . oh, that's right, you'd lose that cozy little arrangement you already have. . .

my bad.

And before you have the smurfing gall to talk about an alleged windfall - know this.
The seizure I had in October last year cost me over $9,000 and i'm still paying on it - so take your smurfing windfall notion and shove it up your smurfing ass.

You know absolutely nothing about my situation.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

No it wouldn't.
Most bills only need to be that big because they stuff a lot of unrelated crap into them that go well beyond the problem that the bill is suppose to address.

I'm fairly certain that you know absolutely nothing about such things.

You are fairly certain about a lot of things that are patently false.
All they need to do is expand medicare to cover those who can't afford insurance or have a precondition and require that those who can afford insurance buy it.

Yes, there's funding issues that have to be addressed, but it doesn't take 1,000 pages to do what I can simply state in a single sentence.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

You are fairly certain about a lot of things that are patently false.
All they need to do is expand medicare to cover those who can't afford insurance or have a precondition and require that those who can afford insurance buy it.

Yes, there's funding issues that have to be addressed, but it doesn't take 1,000 pages to do what I can simply state in a single sentence.

Are you going to admit that the Swiss system was not presented as an "alternative," and that the GOP does not and would not support such a system?  Or are you just hoping we'll move on?

It (and many others) have been presented as an alternative.
Those writing the bill are power high and don't want input.

resedit wrote:

It (and many others) have been presented as an alternative.

If it's been presented, it has been presented by the left.  The right wants NOTHING to do with such a radical left-wing plan, they would fight tooth-and-nail against it, and would make absolutely sure that such a thing never came close to becoming law. 

The plan being considered is far more moderate.   

Those writing the bill are power high and don't want input.

...so what you're saying is that you are completely ignorant as to what discussion and compromise has already been occurring.  Got it.  That's pretty sad, res. 

You might consider picking up a newspaper at some point, sport.  Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, and your kooky fundie groups are doing you wrong.  It's embarrassing.

isaly wrote:

resedit wrote:

isaly wrote:

hey resedit,

How much tax do you pay toward the health care you get? If memory serves, none. Are you upset that that windfall might end by the graces of health insurance reform for all?

How sad.

If you don't like it, perhaps you should consider relocating to another country with no public health insurance scheme. . . oh, that's right, you'd lose that cozy little arrangement you already have. . .

my bad.

And before you have the smurfing gall to talk about an alleged windfall - know this.
The seizure I had in October last year cost me over $9,000 and i'm still paying on it - so take your smurfing windfall notion and shove it up your smurfing ass.

You know absolutely nothing about my situation.

. . . and YOU"RE defending the existing insurance system?

What makes you think that?
I don't like Obama care.
I have repeatedly expressed that the system we have is in serious need of reform.

This is typical of the left - someone doesn't agree with their solution and rather than understanding their is more than one possible way to address the problem, they assume that we don't want the problem addressed. That isn't the case.

Much of my bill is the ambulance ride. Personally I think ambulance service should be a city provided service, much like police. Unfortunately with how high federal and state taxes are, it doesn't leave much income for county/city government to glean from.

I also have suggested two different solutions that are very workable.