Most Americans think health reform

[J.B.]

No those are called elections. Polls are people siting on the couch talking on the phone.

Elections are polls. All polls are polls. The only difference between an election and what you call a poll is that an election is supposed to choose something. (I'm not sure how accurate that is, do remember the poll fraud that got Bush elected the first time. And before anyone says that wasn't fraud, they introduced a completely new ballot system in Florida that confused everyone, they KNEW there were problems with it, and they didn't do a complete re-vote. That's what they needed, not a recount, a complete redo on the votes, with people knowing how to run the ballots properly.)

And many "polls" matter in the short run, they're how companies know they're doing a good job on products or services.

[danielost]

Elections are polls. All polls are polls. The only difference between an election and what you call a poll is that an election is supposed to choose something. (I'm not sure how accurate that is, do remember the poll fraud that got Bush elected the first time. And before anyone says that wasn't fraud, they introduced a completely new ballot system in Florida that confused everyone, they KNEW there were problems with it, and they didn't do a complete re-vote. That's what they needed, not a recount, a complete redo on the votes, with people knowing how to run the ballots properly.)

And many "polls" matter in the short run, they're how companies know they're doing a good job on products or services.

you forgot to mention one thing about the florida problem. those ballot sheets were designed and pushed on the state by the democrats. and they still called the people in florida too stupid to know who they wanted to vote for. i am still waiting for someone to tell me how in a secret ballot you can tell who got shafted in the vote, the elder the blacks or the whites.

Edited September 27, 2010 by danielost

[J.B.]

you forgot to mention one thing about the florida problem. those ballot sheets were designed and pushed on the state by the democrats. and they still called the people in florida too stupid to know who they wanted to vote for. i am still waiting for someone to tell me how in a secret ballot you can tell who got shafted in the vote, the elder the blacks or the whites.

Only a partisan would miss the cooperation in that event.

[TFSM]

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=191123&pid=3587863&st=0entry3587863

The first effects of Obama's new health reform.

Yes. Insurance companies finding loopholes to avoid covering sick children. I hope this post isn't a covert advocation to give the power back to the insurers...after all, they are the ones that are putting profits before the well-being of individuals.

[venqax]

The united states is not governed by polls there been a number of times in our history the people we not in favor of a issue.

Well which is it? Americans are on the wrong side of the issue, or the fact that they don't want health care for all is a lie? You can't have that both ways. On the first, what are you proposing? That the will of the public should only govern when YOU agree with it? Otherwise, the people are just too stupid to know what's best for them so should be treated like children and let the govt tell them what to do? Spoken like a true Dem and lib, I'll give you that. It's all about "the people" and "democracy"-- unless we don't like it, in which case we're going to run to court and try to force it on everyone.

The belief that Americans dont want health care for all is a lie. The Republicans are now saying they want many parts health care reform that took affect last week to stay law. End of life care cost america millions and doesn't nothing to help the patients.

No one said Americans don't want health care for all. They also probably want everyone to live to be 100. The issues are the COSTS of this, and WHO PAYS. There has never, ever been any indication that the public wants "universal" health care no matter how it is done, no matter how much it costs, no matter who has to pay, no matter what.

No discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions, No dropping people from coverage when they get sick, no lifetime limits on coverage, New plans must offer free preventive care, Expanded ability to appeal decisions made by the health plan.

These are new the rules. Not talking points but laws that help people that get sick.

And, as anyone should know, the laws have no more affect than talking points, campaign rhetoric, or just blather. You can't just pass a "law" that everything is free and covered and expect that to just miraculously happen. All of the above is just idealistic nonsense. It can't work. SOMEONE has to PAY for all those "mandaates". So, what is happening is what we see-- insurers are refusing ALL children (no discrimination!) they are dropping other people, they are behaving EXACTLY how they HAVE to in order to maintain profitability and exactly how anyone with half a brain knew they would. Where do increased costs ALWAYS go? Every crtiicism of Obicare is proving true. How's that hopey changey thing workin' out for ya?

[TFSM]

So, what is happening is what we see-- insurers are refusing ALL children (no discrimination!) they are dropping other people, they are behaving EXACTLY how they HAVE to in order to maintain profitability and exactly how anyone with half a brain knew they would.

Wrong. They do what they must to maintain a high level of profitability, not necessarily to maintain profitability all together. Once again, you seem to have missed the mid point and gone to extremes.

Your unwavering support for big business to the detriment of the american public is tragic, though not unexpected.

Edited September 28, 2010 by TFSM

[Michelle]

Yes. Insurance companies finding loopholes to avoid covering sick children. I hope this post isn't a covert advocation to give the power back to the insurers...after all, they are the ones that are putting profits before the well-being of individuals.

First of all, I despise insurance companies. For the most part, Obama has giving more power to them by requiring everyone to buy coverage. There is no doubt in my mind that they will find more loopholes to apply.

[TFSM]

First of all, I despise insurance companies. For the most part, Obama has giving more power to them by requiring everyone to buy coverage. There is no doubt in my mind that they will find more loopholes to apply.

Then I agree with you. This legislation (IMO) didn't go far enough. As of now it plays into the hands of the insurance industry as there is no viable alternative as they all pretty much operate in the same manner.

[venqax]

Wrong. They do what they must to maintain a high level of profitability, not necessarily to maintain profitability all together. Once again, you seem to have missed the mid point and gone to extremes.

Your unwavering support for big business to the detriment of the american public is tragic, though not unexpected.

Your unwavering support for big government to the detriment of the american public is tragic, though not unexpected. OK, so now what?

I hate insurance co's too, BTW. Who doesn't?

[questionmark]

Your unwavering support for big government to the detriment of the american public is tragic, though not unexpected. OK, so now what?

I hate insurance co's too, BTW. Who doesn't?

I don't...in those times I still had shares Munchen RE made me a lot of money.

[TFSM]

Your unwavering support for big government to the detriment of the american public is tragic, though not unexpected. OK, so now what?

Pretty sure I've been speaking out against our various wars and foreign policy for a while. Just doesn't hold water when you say it.

[Michelle]

Then I agree with you. This legislation (IMO) didn't go far enough. As of now it plays into the hands of the insurance industry as there is no viable alternative as they all pretty much operate in the same manner.

And it doesn't anger you that Obama gave more power to them? He pushed it through on his timetable so that it didn't get further consideration.

[venqax]

I don't...in those times I still had shares Munchen RE made me a lot of money.

Lucky you. I'm one of those poor people the libs are supposed to be helping. Or wait-- I pay income tax, so I guess I'm rich. And I have really bad insurance that hardly covers anything. And I can't afford it anyway, because Im poor. Wish I had Medicaid. But Im too rich. So where does that put me?

[venqax]

Pretty sure I've been speaking out against our various wars and foreign policy for a while. Just doesn't hold water when you say it.

Oh, being anti-war and anti-Realist makes you anti-govt? They can run everything at home, just don't push themselves on foreigners? You can run my whole life-- and death-- just don't listen to my phone calls? Sorry, being anti-military, or anti-security establishment doesn't make you a libertarian.

[TFSM]

And it doesn't anger you that Obama gave more power to them? He pushed it through on his timetable so that it didn't get further consideration.

It angers me that, rather than single payer or at least a public option, which may have remedied this situation, Washington political games and protestors picketing against their own interests have resulted in a watered down, non-reform bill that just puts the American people even further in the pockets of big business.

We've forgotten something very important in this country. That the US is by the people and FOR the people. Granted big business are a collection of people, but they do not operate in the best interests of the people as that is not the fiduciary duty of its executives.

[TFSM]

Oh, being anti-war and anti-Realist makes you anti-govt? They can run everything at home, just don't push themselves on foreigners? You can run my whole life-- and death-- just don't listen to my phone calls? Sorry, being anti-military, or anti-security establishment doesn't make you a libertarian.

I forgot you were an authority on libertarianism. Of course, I think you are one of the people who confuses libertarianism with conservatism.

On social issues I am very opposed to government intervention in most cases, but I am not so oblivious as to think that, without government regulation, we will remain a society that helps one another. Your attitude and the attitudes of those like you are clear indicators of that.

Edited September 28, 2010 by TFSM

[TFSM]

Lucky you. I'm one of those poor people the libs are supposed to be helping. Or wait-- I pay income tax, so I guess I'm rich. And I have really bad insurance that hardly covers anything. And I can't afford it anyway, because Im poor. Wish I had Medicaid. But Im too rich. So where does that put me?

Puts you in the same place as many americans who need comprehensive health reform and not the result of party fighting and catering to insurance industry lobbyists.

[ohio state buckeyes]

Well which is it? Americans are on the wrong side of the issue, or the fact that they don't want health care for all is a lie? You can't have that both ways. On the first, what are you proposing? That the will of the public should only govern when YOU agree with it? Otherwise, the people are just too stupid to know what's best for them so should be treated like children and let the govt tell them what to do? Spoken like a true Dem and lib, I'll give you that. It's all about "the people" and "democracy"-- unless we don't like it, in which case we're going to run to court and try to force it on everyone.

No one said Americans don't want health care for all. They also probably want everyone to live to be 100. The issues are the COSTS of this, and WHO PAYS. There has never, ever been any indication that the public wants "universal" health care no matter how it is done, no matter how much it , no matter who has to pay, no matter what.

And, as anyone should know, the laws have no more affect than talking points, campaign rhetoric, or just blather. You can't just pass a "law" that everything is free and covered and expect that to just miraculously happen. All of the above is just idealistic nonsense. It can't work. SOMEONE has to PAY for all those "mandaates". So, what is happening is what we see-- insurers are refusing ALL children (no discrimination!) they are dropping other people, they are behaving EXACTLY how they HAVE to in order to maintain profitability and exactly how anyone with half a brain knew they would. Where do increased costs ALWAYS go? Every crtiicism of Obicare is proving true. How's that hopey changey thing workin' out for ya?

We were lied to over a Iraq. People died that never had to. People in america shouldn't haft to suffer because they lack heath insurance. Preventative care cost less then is then waiting on people to so sick that haft to get care. The far right can stopped whining about the cost of health care and go after the military industrial complex if they really wanted to something about the debt. That will never happen though.

Edited September 28, 2010 by ohio state buckeyes

[Michelle]

It angers me that, rather than single payer or at least a public option, which may have remedied this situation, Washington political games and protestors picketing against their own interests have resulted in a watered down, non-reform bill that just puts the American people even further in the pockets of big business.

We've forgotten something very important in this country. That the US is by the people and FOR the people. Granted big business are a collection of people, but they do not operate in the best interests of the people as that is not the fiduciary duty of its executives.

You would make a very good politician not answering the question. From your answer, I gather you don't think they could have come up with a better solution if given more time...which Obama was not willing to do. He was so eager to get "health reform" passed that he cut off negotiations and settled.

[venqax]

We were lied to over a Iraq. People died that never had to. People in america shouldn't haft to suffer because they lack heath insurance. Preventative care cost less then is then waiting on people to so sick that haft to get care. The far right can stopped whining about the cost of health care and go after the military industrial complex if they really wanted to something about the debt. That will never happen though.

Iraq? What does that have to do with anything? Who was lied to, anyway? The Obi crats have lied about Obicare-- repeatedly. Are you upset about that? The military costs nothing compared to entitlements like SS, Medichasms, and the health care debacle. Nothing could pay for this.

[TFSM]

You would make a very good politician not answering the question. From your answer, I gather you don't think they could have come up with a better solution if given more time...which Obama was not willing to do. He was so eager to get "health reform" passed that he cut off negotiations and settled.

I don't think it would have mattered how much time they spent. One side was bound and determined to filibuster any attempt at progress and the other side had no collective spine. Classic case of bully and geeky kid that wants to be popular.

[venqax]

Puts you in the same place as many americans who need comprehensive health reform and not the result of party fighting and catering to insurance industry lobbyists.

I know. Yet somehow I don't see Obi care helping me one little teeny bit. And I see my costs going UP. All so....what?...another huge ineffective govt bcy can be created to cost me even more, and make an already bad situation worse? What am I going to get out of this? Even longer lines, even higher bills, and even worse treatment. Why would it be that every business improves with privatization except medicine?

Edited September 28, 2010 by venqax

[danielost]

Yes. Insurance companies finding loopholes to avoid covering sick children. I hope this post isn't a covert advocation to give the power back to the insurers...after all, they are the ones that are putting profits before the well-being of individuals.

if an insurance company doesnt make a profit they close their doors, then who insures all the people who were on their roles.

[ninjadude]

if an insurance company doesnt make a profit they close their doors, then who insures all the people who were on their roles.

A different insurance company.

[danielost]

A different insurance company.

who will have to close thier doors now because they cant make a profit. isnt that what you want no profit for insurance companies.