Forum Groups

 

Forums / Politics / Health Care Reform

Health Care Reform

8 posts
  1. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/29/2011 6:06 PM
    The only people who never needed health insurance are those who never needed health care, then died suddenly from an accident or catastrophic bodily malfunction. Everyone else incurs health care costs. If you do not have health insurance and become ill currently taxpayers will foot the bill for you. What is wrong with asking every citizen to make arrangements for their healthcare, a service we all may need so that everyone else does not have to pay for it for you?



  2. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    6/30/2011 12:06 PM
    Is that a question?



  3. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/30/2011 12:06 PM
    I don't know. Is THAT a question? hmmmm?



  4. Keith Lamb
    Keith Lamb avatar
    3 posts
    6/30/2011 1:06 PM
    Children.



  5. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    6/30/2011 2:06 PM
    alohakane said: Children.


    Is....that.....a question......?



  6. Sean Hoolehan
    Sean Hoolehan avatar
    0 posts
    7/4/2011 6:07 AM
    wahlins said: The only people who never needed health insurance are those who never needed health care, then died suddenly from an accident or catastrophic bodily malfunction. Everyone else incurs health care costs. If you do not have health insurance and become ill currently taxpayers will foot the bill for you. In most cases if you have no insurance you go to the hospital and the hospital writes off the loss. Most hospitals also write off the difference between what medicare/medicaid will pay and what they normally charge. How they make up the difference is they charge people with insurance more. What is wrong with asking every citizen to make arrangements for their healthcare, a service we all may need so that everyone else does not have to pay for it for you?
    Nothing is wrong with this. The current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) falls way short of providing a sustainable healthcare system and (in my opinion) leads to a single payer system. Nothing will change the fact that healthy people will always pay for sick people. The present system turns sick people into poor sick people.



  7. Larry Allan
    Larry Allan avatar
    0 posts
    7/4/2011 7:07 AM
    Hoolehan said:
    wahlins said: The only people who never needed health insurance are those who never needed health care, then died suddenly from an accident or catastrophic bodily malfunction. Everyone else incurs health care costs. If you do not have health insurance and become ill currently taxpayers will foot the bill for you. In most cases if you have no insurance you go to the hospital and the hospital writes off the loss. Most hospitals also write off the difference between what medicare/medicaid will pay and what they normally charge. How they make up the difference is they charge people with insurance more. What is wrong with asking every citizen to make arrangements for their healthcare, a service we all may need so that everyone else does not have to pay for it for you?
    Nothing is wrong with this. The current Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) falls way short of providing a sustainable healthcare system and (in my opinion) leads to a single payer system. Nothing will change the fact that healthy people will always pay for sick people. The present system turns sick people into poor sick people.


    Sean, this may be off topic but I understand that if you go to emerg without any insurance they will take care of you and write it off. That is good. But your heath care in that fashion is no different than if we as superintendents decide not to maintain our equipment and only deal with it when there is a catastrophic failure. It doesn't make economic sense in our operations so why does it in health care? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to have a guy get a check up and do regular maintenance than to wait until he blows a head gasket or an aorta which in all likelyhood has a much higher cost?
    I live outside your system so I really do not entirely understand it...just thinking outloud



  8. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    7/4/2011 8:07 AM
    [quote">Sean, this may be off topic but I understand that if you go to emerg without any insurance they will take care of you and write it off. That is good. But your heath care in that fashion is no different than if we as superintendents decide not to maintain our equipment and only deal with it when there is a catastrophic failure. It doesn't make economic sense in our operations so why does it in health care? Wouldn't it be more cost effective to have a guy get a check up and do regular maintenance than to wait until he blows a head gasket or an aorta which in all likelyhood has a much higher cost?
    I live outside your system so I really do not entirely understand it...just thinking outloud

    One difference is we care about our equipment. When one of our people realizes they have clogged arteries they are usually on their way to the ground experiencing a grueling death.



  9. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/25/2011 11:09 AM
    There are only three choices. The way we do it now, provide health care to the sick free of charge. The way health care reform says to do it, make arrangements for everyone then provide heath care when it is needed. The way the Tea Party says to do it, "Let 'em DIE!" What is your choice?

    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OXGe85hTFk[/youtube">



  10. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    9/25/2011 12:09 PM
    wahlins"] "Let 'em DIE!"

    That's a pretty hardline stance you're taking Scott. I thought you had more compassion than that. I never would have taken you to "let them die".



  11. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/25/2011 1:09 PM
    If that was the case then you and I would be in complete agreement, I am sure.



  12. David Court
    David Court avatar
    0 posts
    9/25/2011 5:09 PM
    Health care is great when your employer is paying 100% or at least 80%. Loose a job and start paying Cobra. It is eye opening how much it costs but can you afford to be without. Emergency rooms will cover those who can't pay and that is as far as they will take steps to get illness or injury under control for those who can't afford it. I think health care is a basic necessity. Medicare fraud is rampant and is an example of what government programs can run into. The government needs to get a handle and people have to report healthcare fraud. The citizens of Canada can't wait to get back to their country in time so they can continue to receive their healthcare benefit. It must work for them no matter what we here.



  13. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    9/26/2011 7:09 AM
    Resorting to commercial productions to spread your message? That's...that's...how do I say this? Not so good for the message.



  14. McCallum David K
    McCallum David K avatar
    9/26/2011 8:09 AM
    Medicaid and Social Security fraud is rampant in this country...........let the FBI catch these aSSholes and we can save a ton of money. One evening last week it was reported on Scotts left wing leaning media that over checks were sent out to over 60,000 non qualifying inviduals, either dead or in prison.............sure that is the tip of the iceberg



  15. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    9/26/2011 8:09 AM
    wahlins said: There are only three choices. The way we do it now, provide health care to the sick free of charge. The way health care reform says to do it, make arrangements for everyone then provide heath care when it is needed. The way the Tea Party says to do it, "Let 'em DIE!" What is your choice?



    When you falsely characterize your opponent as advocating a "Let 'em DIE!" policy, it pretty much foreshadows the likelihood of having a reasonable conversation.



  16. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/26/2011 11:09 AM
    jkauffm1 said:
    wahlins said: There are only three choices. The way we do it now, provide health care to the sick free of charge. The way health care reform says to do it, make arrangements for everyone then provide heath care when it is needed. The way the Tea Party says to do it, "Let 'em DIE!" What is your choice?



    When you falsely characterize your opponent as advocating a "Let 'em DIE!" policy, it pretty much foreshadows the likelihood of having a reasonable conversation.


    How do Tea Partiers intend to address health care?



  17. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    9/26/2011 12:09 PM
    JK, you won't know if we can have a reasonable conversation about it unless you try. Scott has posed the question and the ruckus from a "Tea Party" crowd has seemed to say yes "let them die" if that is not true, I would suggest letting us know what the "Tea Party's" plan is, or the Republican plan is, and it can be compared to the plan that the President and congress has put in place. All I ever hear from the republican candidates is they will repeal "Obamacare" whatever that is, without putting up a plan of their own. Hey I know the plan isn't perfect, but before getting rid of it I would like to know what the other option will be.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  18. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    9/26/2011 12:09 PM
    Mel, I wrote my response partly because Scott wrote that same thing as a reponse to one of my posts in a different thread, insinuating that I wasn't prepared to have a reasonable conversation because of how I characterized a perticular government action. If he was not OK with my characterization of a government action, we can not be OK with his characterization of a political party action, especially when it is entirely hyperbole and is backed with no evidence. To agree with Scott's action in one case, but not to agree with the same action in another would be hypocrisy. In my reaction to that post, I told him much the same thing you're telling me now -- you don't know until you try. But, that didn't seem to sway Mr. Wahlin.

    That being said, I could take the route that Mr. Wahlin has used in the past and ask you to show me where the TEA party has directly stated "Let 'em DIE." Beginning with improper assumptions will always lead us to false conclusions.

    How are we supposed to have reasonable conversations if one side begins by being unreasonable?



  19. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/26/2011 1:09 PM
    I love it when someone saves something from another thread. Now we're even?

    Ron Paul's answer during the debate was to let the churches pay for uninsured patients. This was after the Tea Party Crowd cheered and yelled, "Let him die!"



  20. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    9/26/2011 1:09 PM
    wahlins said: I love it when someone saves something from another thread. Now we're even?

    Ron Paul's answer during the debate was to let the churches pay for uninsured patients. This was after the Tea Party Crowd cheered and yelled, "Let him die!"


    So, some lunatic (who may be a democrat as easily as he could be from the tea party) shouts something from the audience of a debate, and you think it constitutes an entire party platform?

    If you can't get past this, there really is no hope of reasonable conversation. I was just trying to make you play by your own rules, but now you're swatting at flies while the elephants (no pun intended) are running you over.



  21. Melvin Waldron
    Melvin Waldron avatar
    43 posts
    9/26/2011 2:09 PM
    And while you two are going back and forth, there still hasn't been a plan presented, a discussion on how to fix the current plan, or what the replacement of the current plan would be. Of course we have had this discussion before and I would defer to Sean Hoolehan as he seems to have the best handle on what is good with the plan that was passed and what is missing from it.

    Mel

    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

  22. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/26/2011 2:09 PM
    I did read something Sen Jim Demint put out that has most of the current healthcare reform bill in there with Tea Party stuff peppered in. Somehow they are going to be able to provide subsidized health insurance for every American with less government bureaucracy. So I guess there is more to it than letting the churches pay, but the plans on both sides are comparable from what I have read.



  23. Clay Putnam
    Clay Putnam avatar
    33 posts
    9/26/2011 3:09 PM
    BallMark said: JK, you won't know if we can have a reasonable conversation about it unless you try. Scott has posed the question and the ruckus from a "Tea Party" crowd has seemed to say yes "let them die" if that is not true, I would suggest letting us know what the "Tea Party's" plan is, or the Republican plan is, and it can be compared to the plan that the President and congress has put in place.
    Mel



    Mel,

    Scott's characterization of the Tea Party is as ridiculous as someone suggesting that Obama will give every homeless person a Cadillac. Having to address such ridiculousness as you have suggested is also, well, ridiculous.



  24. Kauffman John M
    Kauffman John M avatar
    9/26/2011 4:09 PM
    wahlins said: I did read something Sen Jim Demint put out that has most of the current healthcare reform bill in there with Tea Party stuff peppered in. Somehow they are going to be able to provide subsidized health insurance for every American with less government bureaucracy. So I guess there is more to it than letting the churches pay, but the plans on both sides are comparable from what I have read.


    I don't know for sure if the Tea Party has a plan or has articulated it. Maybe you misunderstood what Ron Paul said about churches helping poor folks pay. He didn't put that forward as his definitive plan -- he said it was the way things might work in a perfect world. Last I knew, he also is not a spokesman for the Tea Party, so he speaks only for himself.

    But, the Republicans in Congress put forth several health care initiatives that came up for votes BEFORE Obamacare in 2009 -- SB 1099, HR 2520, and HR 4038. Those plans extended insurance to more currently uncovered people than the current Obamacare and cost less.

    If you listen only to audience reaction at debates and don't seek the truth for yourself, you'll always be at the mercy of inaccurate information.



  25. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/26/2011 5:09 PM
    None of these bills ever got out of committee.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4038



  26. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    9/26/2011 5:09 PM
    wahlins said: None of these bills ever got out of committee.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4038


    Does that surprise you, Scott? That was a Democrat-controlled committee, if I'm not mistake, as all House committess were in the 111th Congress. Please correct me if I'm wrong.



  27. Wahlin Scott B
    Wahlin Scott B avatar
    9/26/2011 6:09 PM
    The Energy and Commerce Committee that year could have reported favorably on this bill allowing the entire House to consider it. That committee was 28R and 25D. I did not check any of the others.



  28. Kim Brock
    Kim Brock avatar
    3 posts
    9/26/2011 6:09 PM
    Ron Paul never said anything about churches paying or help to pay for health care.
    Members of churches years ago would actually take care or check in on people recovering at their homes instead of remaining in hospitals to recover. He said before Medicare or Medicaid, people took care of one another.
    Kim Brock



  29. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    9/26/2011 8:09 PM
    wahlins said: The Energy and Commerce Committee that year could have reported favorably on this bill allowing the entire House to consider it. That committee was 28R and 25D. I did not check any of the others.


    28R and 25D? What am I missing here, Scott? Looks to me like 39D (including a weener) to 23R. Click below and check to the right side.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... d_Commerce



  30. Peter Bowman
    Peter Bowman avatar
    11 posts
    9/26/2011 8:09 PM
    ...and, no, it wasn't because maybe the Subcommittee on Health was a majority R that Congress. Beacuase it wasn't.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... n_Health_2



View or change your forums profile here.