GatewayRedbirds.com

GatewaySnayke wrote:

cardinalkarp wrote:Nope, not if that person decides he's better off sitting on the couch all day instead of making an honest wage (and pretty much most full time jobs have some sort of healthcare).

If someone is sick and can't work then I understand that (but that's probably covered by govenment programs already). But I don't feel one bit sorry for people that decide its in their best interest to sit on the couch and think its their right to get free healthcare. I have to pay for it, why shouldn't they?

I'm not trying to J-bomb the forum or even pick a fight, but this post you wrote is something I've seen written by conservatives many times over in the past five years or so. What I'm wondering is...how many people like this -- people who are unemployed and do not actively seek any sort of employment for long periods of time -- are in the United States?

docellis wrote:i guess that there is absolutely nobody that i personally know that has ever been denied medical treatment in my entire life...so i believe you, but i have never seen this first hand.

Well, I'm pretty sure it's against the law to deny someone medical treatment, but people do lose pretty much everything when they don't have adequate-to-zero insurance.

I could go and find literally hundreds in my home county alone that don't work full time jobs,and don't plan on it any time soon. In my hometown there is a business that finds laborers for businesses that need people for a day or two that has 25-50 standing around it every day. Most of those people can be found at the store buying beer and lottery tickets on payday instead of buying things like food. If it's like this in my town of 12,000,what do you think it's like in an urban area?

Arthur Dent wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:I know what you're saying, but they aren't going to be able to attract the best talent to fill their roles (because they can make better money in other industries), and what you're left with is mediocre to poor performance from a critical (as it's currently structured) industry.

The "best talent" at health insurance companies use their skills trying to avoid having to pay for care and attempting to avoid covering people who might need expensive services. That's why administrative costs are so high and why dealing with insurance is so often a beuracratic pain in the ass. I'd be OK with losing that kind of talent.

That's not the way it works. Health insurance is driven more by marketeers and agents, keenly aware of the need for a competitive product, than it is by accountants and underwriters.

If you guys are interested in looking at a pretty good local plan, you might take a look at Insure Oklahoma. It's become something of a model program for states. Essentially, it offers very affordable insurance rates for mid to lower income families and children. It's designed to help non-salary workers (those who typically can't get health insurance through their work and make less than average incomes). My small office was looking into rates from different insurance companies and this was suggested. None of us actually met the salary requirements, but, at the same time, everyone in the office makes enough that they should be able to afford regular insurance coverage without government aid. I'm pretty sure that under that plan a single adult making $25k or less can get decent insurance for less than $100 a month.

I would like to see more state and local level alternatives like Insure Oklahoma looked into as a possible solution to this problem.

dont know if this has already been shown or whatever, but heres nate silver on "the colbert report" talking about politics and a lil' baseball...i dont know how to embed hulu stuff, so heres just the link...and, its also the entire episode from tuesday, skip ahead to see nate's interview

http://www.hulu.com/watch/38115/the-col ... oct-7-2008

i went without health insurance for 2-3 months earlier this yaer. one time i called my old doctor to find out how much it would cost for an office visit, without my old health insurance.

i was cagey and was trying to avoid saying that i didn't have any healthy insurance at all-and they were cagey right back.

when i finally had to tell them i didn't have ANY insurance they changed the amount of the office visit to make it very affordable.

Jocephus wrote:dont know if this has already been shown or whatever, but heres nate silver on "the colbert report" talking about politics and a lil' baseball...i dont know how to embed hulu stuff, so heres just the link...and, its also the entire episode from tuesday, skip ahead to see nate's interview

http://www.hulu.com/watch/38115/the-col ... oct-7-2008

Here you go...

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Jocephus wrote:dont know if this has already been shown or whatever, but heres nate silver on "the colbert report" talking about politics and a lil' baseball...i dont know how to embed hulu stuff, so heres just the link...and, its also the entire episode from tuesday, skip ahead to see nate's interview

http://www.hulu.com/watch/38115/the-col ... oct-7-2008

Here you go...

booyah man...thanks...i gotta figure out that code...are those numbers always the same? (512,296)

Jocephus wrote:

InvincibleCakeEater wrote:

Jocephus wrote:dont know if this has already been shown or whatever, but heres nate silver on "the colbert report" talking about politics and a lil' baseball...i dont know how to embed hulu stuff, so heres just the link...and, its also the entire episode from tuesday, skip ahead to see nate's interview

http://www.hulu.com/watch/38115/the-col ... oct-7-2008

Here you go...

booyah man...thanks...i gotta figure out that code...are those numbers always the same? (512,296)

I believe so if it's from Hulu. If not you will be able to see the dimensions in the code.

I can't believe in an entire discussion about healthcare, not one single post regarding individual responsibility has come up. Sure, there are problems in the health care system to say the least. But, the ever rising cost of health care is in no small part due to the increased need for it. And, the increases are largely due to unhealthy lifestyles.

I'm not going to say socialization or privatization is the right way. But, honestly, if you have 70% of america obese, you're going to have a problem paying the docor bills, regardless of who is footing the bill.

Blame whoever you want, and I don't know whose fault it is, but this more than any screwy clause in a contract is to blame for premature deaths around America. With increasing obesity comes (not limited to) heart disease, heart attacks, diabetes, kidney problems, liver problems, increased cholesterol, increased blood pressure, decreased circulation, decreased metabolism, loss of energy, etc. etc. etc. etc. You can have a perfect system set in place, but if over half of your population is at an increased risk for the above symptoms, well, you're kind of up [expletive] creek without a paddle and it's going to fail. Period.

For every one case you can point to where someone died due to inadequate insurance, I bet I could point to 10 kids under the age of 10 that are obese. And, that's a much, much bigger problem, imo. Thus, there's a great need for greater preventitive medicine, again imo.

Mike Huckabee wrote:We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay $100 for the shoes that would save his foot.

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:I can't believe in an entire discussion about healthcare, not one single post regarding individual responsibility has come up. Sure, there are problems in the health care system to say the least. But, the ever rising cost of health care is in no small part due to the increased need for it. And, the increases are largely due to unhealthy lifestyles.

I'm not going to say socialization or privatization is the right way. But, honestly, if you have 70% of america obese, you're going to have a problem paying the docor bills, regardless of who is footing the bill.

Blame whoever you want, and I don't know whose fault it is, but this more than any screwy clause in a contract is to blame for premature deaths around America. With increasing obesity comes (not limited to) heart disease, heart attacks, diabetes, kidney problems, liver problems, increased cholesterol, increased blood pressure, decreased circulation, decreased metabolism, loss of energy, etc. etc. etc. etc. You can have a perfect system set in place, but if over half of your population is at an increased risk for the above symptoms, well, you're kind of up [expletive] creek without a paddle and it's going to fail. Period.

For every one case you can point to where someone died due to inadequate insurance, I bet I could point to 10 kids under the age of 10 that are obese. And, that's a much, much bigger problem, imo. Thus, there's a great need for greater preventitive medicine, again imo.

Mike Huckabee wrote:We have to change a system that happily pays $30,000 for a diabetic to have his foot amputated, but won't pay $100 for the shoes that would save his foot.

Not denying obesity's a big problem, but 50 yrs. ago probably 40% of the adult population smoked. Last I checked, wealthy people still smoke, eat a ton, drink, etc. I am fully supportive of preventative treatment. The problem still lies within our health care system. There are people every day stricken by unpredictable diseases uncovered by insurance.