View Poll Results: Where do you stand on UHC?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • I'm pro-choice and I support UHC

    22 46.81%
  • I'm pro-choice and I do not support UHC

    9 19.15%
  • I'm pro-life and I support UHC

    2 4.26%
  • I'm pro-life and I do not support UHC

    11 23.40%
  • Other (explain)

    3 6.38%
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 84

Thread: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Can government run Medicaid? Or should it be abolished? It's a simple question.
    More loaded questions, you're quite pathetic.

    Answer: neither. The government can not run Medicaid nor should Medicaid be abolished.

    Medicaid should be fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    This is ridiculous. Despite your claims to the contrary, you don't want to fix the current problems, you want to oppose any and all change unless it's 100% perfect.
    I'll settle for 50%, which means no UHC.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I still haven't heard you explain why you think Medicaid is an effective program and why UHC would not be an effective program. I'm waiting.
    If you could read you would notice that I never said Medicaid was an effective program. I said it covered my sister's cancer treatment, which was a counter to someone els's personal experience. Anecdotal for anecdotal.

    So keep waiting, I have no intention of supporting a claim I never made

  2. #62
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    More loaded questions, you're quite pathetic.
    For someone who thinks so highly of his debating skills, you have quite the tendency to duck difficult questions and call names instead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Answer: neither. The government can not run Medicaid nor should Medicaid be abolished.

    Medicaid should be fixed.
    Oh I see...it should be fixed. So even though you stated that the government always makes life worse, you believe it is possible to "fix" Medicaid? What are the problems you see with Medicaid, and how do you propose to fix them? And why would those same fixes not work for UHC?

    Why do you believe that YOUR family be insured by the government, and other people should not be?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-29-09 at 04:09 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You do realize that avoiding the question and instead calling names doesn't help your argument. But if you were the great debater that you claim you are, you would know that.
    Yeah yeah, I'm supposed to acquiesce to challenges to loaded questions.

    Kandahar: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
    Jerry: "I never beat my wife".
    Kandahar: "You're avoiding the question!!!"

    Yeah whatever lil'bro.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Oh I see...it should be fixed. So even though you stated that the government always makes life worse, you believe it is possible to "fix" Medicaid? What are the problems you see with Medicaid, and how do you propose to fix them? And why would those same fixes not work for UHC?
    You keep trying to bait me into discussing Medicaid

    Not gona happen.

    Problems with UHC begin with politicians admitting not to have read the bill, and are what the town hall dramas are all about. From panels which will decide who gets treatment and who doesn't, to rationed care, illegals being covered, no price controls...the list goes on.

    The solution to UHC today is simple: drop it. Stop pursuing UHC in any form. Give it up and forget it. Dismiss the bill, don't vote for it, move on to something else, like getting the government out of GM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why do you believe that YOUR family be insured by the government, and other people should not be?
    Another loaded question.

    Who said I do think my family should be covered by Medicaid while others are not covered by Medicaid? Certainly not me. I said that my sister was covered, I gave no opinion on it. That's just a fact.

    She was diagnosed with cancer and then applied for Medicaid. That was my point: people with pre-existing conditions are in fact already covered, thereby eliminating the need for UHC to care for those with pre-existing conditions.

  4. #64
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Who said I do think my family should be covered by Medicaid while others are not covered by Medicaid? Certainly not me. I said that my sister was covered, I gave no opinion on it. That's just a fact.
    You said that Medicaid should be "fixed" (whatever that means) instead of eliminated, despite not mentioning any problems or solutions, and despite the fact that you said government programs invariably make life worse. That sounds suspiciously like trying to make an exception for a program that your family personally benefits from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    She was diagnosed with cancer and then applied for Medicaid. That was my point: people with pre-existing conditions are in fact already covered, thereby eliminating the need for UHC to care for those with pre-existing conditions.
    Wrong again. Her particular preexisting condition was covered; many are not. Having a preexisting condition or being poor is generally not sufficient to qualify someone for Medicaid.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 08-29-09 at 04:33 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #65
    Mod Apologist

    missypea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,152

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post

    She was diagnosed with cancer and then applied for Medicaid. That was my point: people with pre-existing conditions are in fact already covered, thereby eliminating the need for UHC to care for those with pre-existing conditions.
    The people who go on Medicaid because often have a period of time when they're not covered so the bills, which are high for a cancer patient, will remain patient responsibility.

    Medicaid sometimes goes retro but not always and certainly not always back to the original DOS. In the case of an outpatient service they usually don't go back to the DOS. Inpatient bills can be split but since the higher cost is always on day one, a split bill means that higher cost will remain patient responsibility.

    The way it stands now, if you get sick and are not currently covered by Medicaid, the bills are going to be astronomical while you're waiting for Medicaid to kick in........assuming you qualify (which is a whole 'nother issue).



    I would chat with her when I'm feeling particularly snarky, but I wouldn't ever call her on the phone.

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You said that Medicaid should be "fixed" (whatever that means) instead of eliminated, despite not mentioning any problems or solutions, and despite the fact that you said government programs invariably make life worse. That sounds suspiciously like trying to make an exception for a program that your family personally benefits from.

    Wrong again. Her particular preexisting condition was covered; many are not. Having a preexisting condition or being poor is generally not sufficient to qualify someone for Medicaid.
    Then that's one specific "problem" which we need to fix.

    Redress gave an example, I gave a counter example. 1 for 1. Now you're citing this elusive "many" people who can not get coverage. Whatever. Whoever they are, identify them, and re-write the Medicaid rules so they qualify. That's all you have to do.

    No UHC required.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by missypea View Post
    The people who go on Medicaid because often have a period of time when they're not covered so the bills, which are high for a cancer patient, will remain patient responsibility.

    Medicaid sometimes goes retro but not always and certainly not always back to the original DOS. In the case of an outpatient service they usually don't go back to the DOS. Inpatient bills can be split but since the higher cost is always on day one, a split bill means that higher cost will remain patient responsibility.

    The way it stands now, if you get sick and are not currently covered by Medicaid, the bills are going to be astronomical while you're waiting for Medicaid to kick in........assuming you qualify (which is a whole 'nother issue).

    Alright well first of all they were the dumb**** who didn't get coverage before they were diagnosed, so a large part of the problem falls on the "victim" herself. You should have catastrophic medical coverage at least, long-term disability also, and it's so cheap that there's no excuse for not having it.

    Unless they're disabled, they need to get a job or 2 and buy a policy. And don't bother giving me the "bad economy" argument because I was fired a few weeks ago and found another job the same ****ing day. Don't like recessions? Don't participate.

    If someone gives their best efforts and still falls through the cracks, that's why we have programs like Medicade.

    Anyone who can not get emergency coverage is an example which proves that the government can not run these programs. Every person who falls through the cracks and still can not access the safety net is a proof that the government blunders everything it touches. Each person Medicaid turns down is a reason why we can not have UHC.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-29-09 at 01:34 PM.

  8. #68
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Then that's one specific "problem" which we need to fix.

    Redress gave an example, I gave a counter example. 1 for 1. Now you're citing this elusive "many" people who can not get coverage. Whatever. Whoever they are, identify them, and re-write the Medicaid rules so they qualify. That's all you have to do.

    No UHC required.
    And how would doing exactly what you proposed NOT be UHC?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And how would doing exactly what you proposed NOT be UHC?
    Well, a reformed Medicaid would not cover your average Joe, but only those in desperate situations. There would be no death-panels, no fines for being un-insured, no illegalizing private policies, no single payer, etc.

    UHC will cover every person, top to bottom, regardless of lack of need for coverage.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-29-09 at 02:33 PM.

  10. #70
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Well, a reformed Medicaid would not cover your average Joe, but only those in desperate situations.
    Any low-premium / high-deductible public option would do the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    There would be no death-panels,
    There aren't any in the current UHC proposals either. Take off your tinfoil hat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    no fines for being un-insured,
    Nope, under your plan those costs would just be passed off to the taxpayer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    no illegalizing private policies, no single payer, etc.
    Those things don't exist in any of the current UHC proposals either. Take off your tinfoil hat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    UHC will cover every person, top to bottom, regardless of lack of need for coverage.
    So would your plan. The only difference is that your plan would pretend that they aren't covered until they actually need to be covered.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •