Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

Kandahar · Aug 26, 2009

Jerry said:
We already have Medicaid/care for that.

We don't need anything more than we already have.

Medicare only covers people over 65; good luck getting affordable insurance on your own if you're 60. Medicaid does not cover all serious illnesses for all poor people. And there is no coverage at all for people who are already sick and can't get insurance.

Redress · Aug 26, 2009

Jerry said:
We already have Medicaid/care for that.

We don't need anything more than we already have.

So my brother, who has cancer that is in complete remission, if he chooses to change jobs and his cancer flairs up again, Medicaid will cover his medical costs not covered by his new insurance since it is a pre-existing condition?

Jerry · Aug 27, 2009

Kandahar said:
Medicare only covers people over 65; good luck getting affordable insurance on your own if you're 60. Medicaid does not cover all serious illnesses for all poor people. And there is no coverage at all for people who are already sick and can't get insurance.

That's one way to ignore the greater problem, sure, I just hope you realize how government has proven, conclusively, that it will always make life worse for these people than private companies.

Jerry · Aug 27, 2009

Redress said:
So my brother, who has cancer that is in complete remission, if he chooses to change jobs and his cancer flairs up again, Medicaid will cover his medical costs not covered by his new insurance since it is a pre-existing condition?

Yeah it currently cover's my sister's brain cancer, why not?

Layla_Z · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
Medicare only covers people over 65; good luck getting affordable insurance on your own if you're 60. Medicaid does not cover all serious illnesses for all poor people. And there is no coverage at all for people who are already sick and can't get insurance.

I've dealt with Medicaid for 7 years now, luckily never for anything really serious. In my experience it depends on the provider. I've dealt with two, one was terrible and one has been great.

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

Jerry said:
That's one way to ignore the greater problem, sure, I just hope you realize how government has proven, conclusively, that it will always make life worse for these people than private companies.

So your sister with brain cancer is worse off on Medicaid than she would be without it?

Jerry · Aug 28, 2009

Kandahar said:
So your sister with brain cancer is worse off on Medicaid than she would be without it?

I'm not contesting Medicade on this thread.

I said we already have coverage for your examples, which we do, and therefore there is no need to have UHC even assuming it would stop with covering only those who fall through the cracks.

Kandahar · Aug 28, 2009

Jerry said:
I'm not contesting Medicade on this thread.

I said we already have coverage for your examples, which we do, and therefore there is no need to have UHC even assuming it would stop with covering only those who fall through the cracks.

You said:

That's one way to ignore the greater problem, sure, I just hope you realize how government has proven, conclusively, that it will always make life worse for these people than private companies.

Sounds pretty absolute to me. If government is always so horrible, why aren't you arguing against Medicaid too? Could it be because you personally know someone who benefits from it? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Or are you suggesting that Medicaid is good, but UHC would not help people the way that Medicaid does? If so, on what are you basing this conclusion?

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
You said:

Sounds pretty absolute to me. If government is always so horrible, why aren't you arguing against Medicaid too? Could it be because you personally know someone who benefits from it? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Or are you suggesting that Medicaid is good, but UHC would not help people the way that Medicaid does? If so, on what are you basing this conclusion?

Why am I not falling for your lame debate tactics and attempts to change the subject with unrepresentative samples and red-herrings?

rof I'm a better debater than you.

The current system needs reform. Obama would add to the existing dysfunctional blunder, not correct any existing problems.

I want to fix the current problems, and adding more problems is not the way to fix the existing problems.

When the governement proves that it can run anything by fixing SS, then after 40 years I might, mabye, be open to Obama's sugestions.

Until then, no UHC. Not a "compromise". Nothing.

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
Why am I not falling for your lame debate tactics and attempts to change the subject with unrepresentative samples and red-herrings?

rof I'm a better debater than you.

No. You really aren't. I'm much smarter than you.

rof

Jerry said:
The current system needs reform. Obama would add to the existing dysfunctional blunder, not correct any existing problems.

And once again: You are basing this on what exactly?

Jerry said:
I want to fix the current problems, and adding more problems is not the way to fix the existing problems.

When the governement proves that it can run anything by fixing SS, then after 40 years I might, mabye, be open to Obama's sugestions.

Can government run Medicaid? Or should it be abolished? It's a simple question.

Jerry said:
Until then, no UHC. Not a "compromise". Nothing.

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 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.

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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 :2wave:

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
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.

Jerry said:
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?

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar said:
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 :lol:

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.

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
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.

Jerry said:
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.

missypea · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
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).

:2wave:

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

missypea said:
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).

:2wave:

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.

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
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?

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
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.

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
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.

Jerry said:
There would be no death-panels,

There aren't any in the current UHC proposals either. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Jerry said:
no fines for being un-insured,

Nope, under your plan those costs would just be passed off to the taxpayer.

Jerry said:
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.

Jerry said:
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.

DeeJayH · Aug 29, 2009

the Big O is smart enough to know he can not get everything he wants ............now
so he is going to implement it inch by inch during his administration
if he gets what he wants now, my prediction is that he will find something more that 'will require' more expansion into healthcare until dear leaders single payer system is complete

Redress · Aug 29, 2009

DeeJayH said:
the Big O is smart enough to know he can not get everything he wants ............now
so he is going to implement it inch by inch during his administration
if he gets what he wants now, my prediction is that he will find something more that 'will require' more expansion into healthcare until dear leaders single payer system is complete

Inch by inch is how any significant changes to health care should be implemented. While I understand why Obama wants to rush it, I don't think it is wise. Make some (hopeful) improvements, take some time, analyze the result, make some more changes. Of course, there are practical problems with this approach, but it's how I think it should be done.

DeeJayH · Aug 29, 2009

Redress said:
Inch by inch is how any significant changes to health care should be implemented. While I understand why Obama wants to rush it, I don't think it is wise. Make some (hopeful) improvements, take some time, analyze the result, make some more changes. Of course, there are practical problems with this approach, but it's how I think it should be done.

I concur 100%. They could fix MassHC, and show us how it can be done right, and than

Jerry · Aug 29, 2009

Kandahar said:
Any low-premium / high-deductible public option would do the same thing.

"Public" = UHC here?

Kandahar said:
There aren't any in the current UHC proposals either. Take off your tinfoil hat.

Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 “Advance Care Planning Consultation” :aliens1:

Kandahar said:
Nope, under your plan those costs would just be passed off to the taxpayer.

"My" plan? I'm a politician who has presented a bill? When the **** did this happen?

Kandahar said:
Those things don't exist in any of the current UHC proposals either. Take off your tinfoil hat.

"Shared responsibility payments" FTW :2wave:

Kandahar said:
So would your plan.

....*sniker*....MY plan....yeah I made, run and personally own Medicaid :lol:

Kandahar said:
The only difference is that your plan would pretend that they aren't covered until they actually need to be covered.

Right, exactly. They aren't covered unless they need to be. It's great.

Obama would require that everyone be covered, for everything, rather they need it or not so that they have to pay for it. Fines to employers who do not offer insurance, fines to individuals of about $1,000 for declining coverage, and more for families who aren't covered.

It sounds like you would for the most part agree with me, that Obama care is a bad idea as proposed, if you accepted various facts regarding fines and mandated coverage.

Let's work on some compromise here. You're hell bent on UHC, and Obama won the election so it IS going to happen in some form.

Let's take Norway for example. They have UHC, and it works for them. Why not here?

The reason it won't work here is because Norway can afford socialism. They pay for it with cash, because they allow off-shore oil drilling and impose competitive terrifs for foreign entities to drill in arias of their control.

The US does not.

So, you want UHC, ok. You can have it if you can pay for it, and taxing the rich has proven not to be the way. The government has to get a job and produce something.

Taking Norway as the example, the US needs to drill ANWAR and the Gulf Coast, and authorization for this drilling needs to be established before we even think of discussing the specifics of UHC.

Kandahar · Aug 29, 2009

Jerry said:
"Public" = UHC here?

Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 “Advance Care Planning Consultation” :aliens1:

"My" plan? I'm a politician who has presented a bill? When the **** did this happen?

"Shared responsibility payments" FTW :2wave:

....*sniker*....MY plan....yeah I made, run and personally own Medicaid :lol:

Right, exactly. They aren't covered unless they need to be. It's great.

Obama would require that everyone be covered, for everything, rather they need it or not so that they have to pay for it.

The whole purpose of insurance is to share the risk. That means you pay your premiums when you don't need it, you pay your premiums when you do need it, and the insurance pays your bills when you need it.

That whole concept is lost if you start allowing anyone and everyone to jump on board Medicaid whenever they need it without asking them to directly contribute anything when they don't. UHC would be a big improvement over what you are suggesting, because the funding will mostly be derived from customers who pay premiums, instead of from the taxpayers as a whole.

Pro-choice and Pro-UHC

Where do you stand on UHC?

I'm pro-choice and I support UHC

I'm pro-choice and I do not support UHC

I'm pro-life and I support UHC

I'm pro-life and I do not support UHC

Other (explain)

Enemy Combatant

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Mod Apologist

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Enemy Combatant