- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question about our debt ?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:26 pm to goofball
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:26 pm to goofball
quote:
these people would have no access to health care at all. It would be like the Bush years all over again.
Which were horrible for people who were uninsured or had pre-existing conditions.
Let's not go back and have Americans die due to it.
2
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:27 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Let's not go back and have Americans die due to it.
Why don't you stop listening to Salon and actually wait and see what the new piece of legislature says.
You won't have to read this one at two in the morning AFTER it's passed.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:28 pm to BamaAtl
BamaAtl is all for creating Type-2 diabetes through food stamps (soda soda soda), but bleats about how we can't let those poor people die? What a fricking joke.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:28 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
. I'd just ask that we include not using them to promote lifelong dependency in large parts of the population.
That's where we differ - I don't see health insurance as a promoting lifelong dependency. It's a win-win, because it's cheaper for those of us without subsidized health insurance to cover these individuals with our taxes, rather than have their costs added to our bills.
So aside from the moral argument of being the richest country in the world and being able to afford helping our citizens, you're going to be paying for these people one way or another. Just because the more economical way was passed by Democrats (though it was, of course, a Republican idea) isn't a sufficient reason to discount it.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:29 pm to texashorn
quote:
BamaAtl is all for creating Type-2 diabetes through food stamps
A real progressive wound support banning foods and beverages with sugar and fat.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:30 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
s a win-win, because it's cheaper for those of us without subsidized health insurance to cover these individuals with our taxes, rather than have their costs added to our bills.
Medicaid (the majority of your "newly insured" deadbeats) has experienced an INCREASE in emergency room visits.
Are you ever correct?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:30 pm to bamarep
quote:
actually wait and see what the new piece of legislature says.
There is no new legislation. There is nothing that Republicans can pass that meets their expressed tests of providing similar coverage for at least as many people for a lower cost.
If they produce just such a bill, I'll gladly support it. But I don't think a unicorn's going to show up in my back yard tomorrow morning, either.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:31 pm to texashorn
quote:
Medicaid (the majority of your "newly insured" deadbeats) has experienced an INCREASE in emergency room visits.
What do you think happens to these individuals when they don't go to the ER for small things for decades, they just go away?
Or do you think that maybe the small problems snowball into big problems, and we end up paying for those big problems? Because that would be the correct answer.
As I said, the law needs some tweaks - and looking at ED visits vs PC visits would be a good step. Still not a reason to revoke 20M people's insurance.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:31 pm to tigerfan63
Another dumbass question.
What if you said f$@k it, pulled home all military assets (and paid olny for maintenance), suspended the government for a year, printed 23 trillion to pay off debt, brought part of the govt back in year 2, and then put in a balanced budget amendment after that.
With the military assets,we have currently, would anyone do anything about it?
Ie, rip off the bandaid and screw Gina.
'Merica
What if you said f$@k it, pulled home all military assets (and paid olny for maintenance), suspended the government for a year, printed 23 trillion to pay off debt, brought part of the govt back in year 2, and then put in a balanced budget amendment after that.
With the military assets,we have currently, would anyone do anything about it?
Ie, rip off the bandaid and screw Gina.
'Merica
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:35 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
What do you think happens to these individuals when they don't go to the ER for small things for decades, they just go away?
They're too lazy to make a doctor's appointment (if they can find one that accepts their shitty ACA policy or Medicaid)... and/or they're looking for drugs like Vicodin.
Let 'em croak.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:38 pm to texashorn
quote:
Let 'em croak.
And that's where we differ. I'm more for helping my fellow citizens NOT die in the streets.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:40 pm to BamaAtl
I've never seen anyone die in the streets in my entire life. Have you, other than hood rats slinging slugs at each other in John Lewis' congressional district?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:40 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I'm more for helping my fellow citizens NOT die in the streets.
well his statement (the part you quoted) was harsh
but
you ignored the qualifying statements prior, which are valid
if people who have the ability to get normal treatment fail to act properly, why do we reward their bad behavior? why shouldn't it be punished?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I'm more for helping my fellow citizens NOT die in the streets
Which we'd have more money for and need to do less with more manufacturing/industry jobs and no debt.
This post was edited on 1/15/17 at 5:42 pm
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:44 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
I don't see health insurance as a promoting lifelong dependency.
That isn't what I said.
quote:
It's a win-win
For some. Not for most.
quote:
richest country in the world
Socialism didn't make us the richest country in the world.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
if people who have the ability to get normal treatment fail to act properly, why do we reward their bad behavior? why shouldn't it be punished?
How do we properly measure and record ability to get normal treatment and failing to act properly? What's the appropriate punishment?
Am I to take that for you being in favor of not just mandatory insurance, but mandatory annual check-ups or required screenings? With penalties if not completed?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:49 pm to BamaAtl
You are completely right. Sadly, these folks are caught up in the propaganda driven conundrum of supporting leaders to run the government that hold the institution itself in contempt.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:49 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
How do we properly measure and record ability to get normal treatment and failing to act properly?
Emergency room frequent fliers being told to leave the premises without threat of litigation?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Socialism didn't make us the richest country in the world.
Good argument to be made that unions did, but that's neither here nor there.
quote:
It's a win-win
For some. Not for most.
The trouble is, we have no way of knowing who the some will be (except for some exceptions). You never know if you'll need health care tomorrow, from a stroke to a cancer diagnosis to a car accident. And if you bet that you'll never need the care, and you bet wrong, you are financially ruined without insurance and bear the burden of paying for all those individuals who also bet poorly.
We can do better than that.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 5:51 pm to texashorn
quote:
Emergency room frequent fliers being told to leave the premises without threat of litigation?
We can't do that without first assessing the severity of their condition. Thanks Reagan! (not that I disagree, obviously)
Page 5 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News