|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 96 responses total. |
nharmon
|
|
response 13 of 96:
| 
Feb 1 15:51 UTC 2006 |
No, it is not "socialism". In fact, I think it should go further than
that. If you are permanently disabled from an injury at work, you are
entitled to applicable medical costs AND 2/3rds(?) of your salary for
life. I'm not sure what soldiers who are permenantly disabled get, but
it should not be anything less than that.
|
richard
|
|
response 14 of 96:
|
Feb 1 16:31 UTC 2006 |
Is the government paying for health care different from the government paying
for education? Is klg then against public schools, paid for by taxpayers that
kids go to for free? Is he against student loans for college? the government
pays for that too with taxes. If klg thinks people with no money have no
right to healthcare, he must also think they have no right to an education
|
klg
|
|
response 15 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:06 UTC 2006 |
y're getting hyterical . . They're getting hysterical . . They're gettin
I love watching it happen!
getting hyterical . . They're getting hysterical . . They're getting hy
|
nharmon
|
|
response 16 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:13 UTC 2006 |
> Is the government paying for health care different from the government
> paying for education?
Yes, but it shouldn't be. Let the government provide health care and
education for all children. Then once they become adults, they can pay
for it themselves.
|
tod
|
|
response 17 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:15 UTC 2006 |
Know what would make me happy? If those of us gainfully employed could
actually add our parents to our health insurance coverage. I'd be curious
what sort of impacts that would have on the state of emergency in healthcare
if folks knew that if they get their kids educated and through college then
they themselves stand a chance to benefit in their later years through
coverage under their willing children. Think about it...
|
nharmon
|
|
response 18 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:16 UTC 2006 |
Good call Todd.
|
klg
|
|
response 19 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:17 UTC 2006 |
The more the federal government gets involved, the more screwed up
things get.
Or do you think SAT scores have been rising since the Dept of Education
was created?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 20 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:23 UTC 2006 |
It would probably cause group insurance premiums to rise even more
quickly, as elderly people are likely to have more expensive healthcare
requirements than younger people. I suppose it would help Medicare and
Medicaid as some people could be moved off those programs. I suspect it
would lead to hiring discrimination against immigrants, whose parents
would be more likely to avail themselves of the service (since they may
not be eligible for Medicare.)
|
twenex
|
|
response 21 of 96:
|
Feb 1 17:31 UTC 2006 |
I'm not that familiar with the US education system, but I wouldn't be
surprised if SAT scores were invented BY the federal Dept. of Education, in
which case klg's complaint is irrelevant, since they can't be shown to have
risen before the creation of the FDE. And if they have been going down, that's
probably got a lot to do with the propagation of anti-intellectualism. So,
assuming (as it seems safe to do) that klg is a Bush/Rove-style hardline
Republican, logically, klg should LOVE the FDE. But then logic and klg don't
really mix, do they?
|
happyboy
|
|
response 22 of 96:
|
Feb 1 18:18 UTC 2006 |
re19: that's a great indictment of the domestic
spying program and the iraq war, kerry!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 23 of 96:
|
Feb 1 18:26 UTC 2006 |
I favor a national health care program run by a non-profit agency chartered
by the government. It would provide basic health care for all and be paid for
primarily from taxes plus some co-pays depending on individual income.
There is the danger of "The more the federal government gets involved, the
more screwed up things get", but that sentiment is in fact ususally false.
The government is involved in most things and most things work quite well
if not invaded by self-serving or politically biased meddling (the unique
self-serving and biased meddling of the current administration is what
screws up many current programs).
|
jep
|
|
response 24 of 96:
|
Feb 1 18:42 UTC 2006 |
Fortunately, self-serving, politically biased meddling by presidential
administrations is pretty rare in Washington, DC. It is almost unheard
of that there is more than one such at any time. We can therefore
proceed with confidence in irrevocably handing over the health care of
all of us to the federal government.
I wonder if federal representatives and employees will absent
themselves from participation in, and dependence on, a national health
insurance program in favor of another program, as was done with Social
Security? I sure hope so! I wouldn't be able to sleep if government
clerks and Senators and other such important people were forced into
the same health insurance or retirement program that my family is
required to use.
|
klg
|
|
response 25 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:23 UTC 2006 |
Curl needs to chat with some of the folks who are dealing with the
Medicare Drug Benefit program if he believes the govt can run things
without screwing them up. (By the way, sorry to disappoint you, but
there's no Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.)
|
richard
|
|
response 26 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:50 UTC 2006 |
hillary clinton's health care plan would have been good, but the gop killed
it because it would have created a new cabinet level agency, too much
bureacracy. So what did the gop then do when they got in power? They created
a new cabinet level agency with even MORE bureacracy.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 27 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:52 UTC 2006 |
The Medicare drug program is being run by the govt? Huh. I had the
impression that it was being run by a variety of private companies with
the government providing some degree of oversight.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:52 UTC 2006 |
Actually as far as I can tell the Medicare Drug Benefit is serving
its intended constituency brilliantly. Just don't make the mistake
of believing the program was created to benefit seniors. I'm sure
the insurance and drug companies are loving it..
|
tod
|
|
response 29 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:52 UTC 2006 |
Yea, or talk to veterans that are watching ol George whittle away at their
care.
|
klg
|
|
response 30 of 96:
|
Feb 1 20:56 UTC 2006 |
re:26
ey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey..
Lunacy and lies.
....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey....Oy, vey...O
|
richard
|
|
response 31 of 96:
|
Feb 1 21:10 UTC 2006 |
hillary clinton's plan would have created a new health services agency and
given everyone a "health security" card/number just like we all have a social
security card/number. It would have taken power away from greedy HMO's and
guaranteed everyone some form of health care. It was a shame it failed to
pass.
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 96:
|
Feb 1 21:14 UTC 2006 |
Ever been in a public health subsidized clinic? You really want everyone to
have to go there for every ailment? I'm getting visions of the INS office
in Detroit..everything short of people bringing in their lil caged chickens
and goats.
Hospitals would quickly disappear and be replaced with seedy storefront
clinics where maybe one doctor oversees the whole operation. In a pandemic
scenario, that would be a catastrophe.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 96:
|
Feb 1 21:19 UTC 2006 |
The Medicare Drug Benefit program is a REPUBLICAN, not "government", lunancy
designed to make a killing for drug companies and headaches if not worse for
the public.
|
gull
|
|
response 34 of 96:
|
Feb 2 01:04 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:17: It's an interesting concept, but again I think it would
cause adverse selection problems. The people who chose to add their
parents to their health care plans would be the people with the sickest
parents. Maybe if you made it mandatory for everyone to add their
parents, so it would rope in a large number of healthy people, too...
You simply can't run an economical health insurance program if the
insured population is allowed to self-select.
Re resp:24: Actually, that's an interesting point. Congressmen already
have government-run health care, and by all accounts their system works
pretty well. That's at least one counterpoint to the "government will
inevitably screw it up" argument.
Re resp:33: I always find it funny when the Republicans come up with
some poorly-designed government program that's designed to fail, then
point to it and say, "See? Government can't do anything right!" Of
course government isn't going to work when you elect people who openly
believe government *can't* work.
|
klg
|
|
response 35 of 96:
|
Feb 2 01:29 UTC 2006 |
Curl's and RW's belief in the benificence of a political party or of the
government certainly must rival my belief in the benificence of God.
Anyone who thinks they're really athiests has been sorely misled.
Does DB think that the plan that the Senators and Congressmen use would
be a screw up?
In general, government programs are, practically by definition, designed
to fail, DB. It doesn't actually matter which party dreamed them up.
The sooner you learn this, the better.
|
slynne
|
|
response 36 of 96:
|
Feb 2 01:52 UTC 2006 |
Having people add their parents to their health insurance plans isnt
exactly a good solution. For one thing, it isnt exactly fair to people
who cant have kids or to people who only have one kid who dies before
the parents are elderly.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 96:
|
Feb 2 03:57 UTC 2006 |
Our government is a government program, but hardly seems to have been
"designed to fail". I think KLG has some screws loose that rattle when
he writes.
|