If your Thick Skinned & like hard-nosed Sports and or Political conversation then this steel and barbed wire cage match type of forum is for you................

Click To Enter

No access to healthcare???

<< < (2/5) > >>

NCVol:
Quote from: Just Win on March 19, 2010, 07:37:26 AM

In addition to over 1/3 of physicians retiring if this demon  beast of a bill is passed you can look for more health delivery services either close up shop or be taken over by the same entity that runs the DMV and your local post office. Socialism always leads to rationing and shortages every time.



Medicaid is a STATE PROGRAM - there are fifty different ones across the country, chronically underfunded since the benefits go to poor people.  The bill in front of Congress hopefully takes some folks off of the Medicaid rolls by making insurance reachable for some poor working people who otherwise have two options - Medicaid or uninsured.  

BTW, what do you call the inability of poor people to afford the average 7,000 per person cost of our care but rationing by price?  It's different than some other kinds of rationing since it only affects poor people who don't matter much in the world of conservatives, but it IS a very effective form of rationing used all over the globe in developing countries to deny health services to poor people.  

BTW, cite for that "1/3 of physicians retiring" please....  Which right wing propaganda outfit made up that little statistic? 

But maybe you can help me out with the thought process here.  We know that the bill in front of Congress spends an extra $trillion or so over 10 years - that's the cost part.  And there are some revenues to offset the cost, none of them that I know of come from providers.  So the health care system is getting an extra $100 billion per year.  But what you're telling me is that $100 billion per year in extra funding, from covering 33 million uninsureds, is going to make physicians retire - $100 billion per year in more money available to pay doctors and hospitals and drug companies is going to lead to the loss of one third of our physicians?  I'm missing something....  Help me work through the math.  Where do the physicians lose in that deal? 

I'd have thought that the extra funding to cover 33 million would HELP providers who otherwise have to give uncompensated care - the doctors and hospitals who write off all those fees to the uninsureds.  So where does the money go if not to the providers? 

Sasquatch:
Quote from: NCVol on March 19, 2010, 12:52:47 AM

- we fine employers of illegals -

In the Obamanation, this is a moot point:

Obama backs plan to legalize illegals

President Obama gave a thumbs up Thursday to the outline of a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a flow of low-skilled foreign workers for the future, saying the immigration bill being worked on by a Republican and a Democrat is "promising."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/18/obama-endorses-immigration-blueprint/

NCVol:
It was a moot point under Bush, too.  Border enforcement was a joke, and interior enforcement of employers was literally almost non-existent.  The only time the Bush administration raided an employer was during the runup to the vote on immigration reform - to give some cover to the joke that there will be effective border controls, this time. 

And don't forget which President had the last big amnesty - that's right St. Ronald of Reagan! 

The problem is liberals want to legalize the illegals since they see a potential voting bloc, among other reasons.  "Conservatives" want to legalize the illegals since they kiss the rear ends of large (and small) employers who depend on a steady flow of immigrant workers to keep wages low all across the labor scale - it's a form of offshoring the remaining manual labor jobs that cannot be moved offshore, bring the exploitable, foreign low wage workers HERE.  There is simply not much of a deep pocketed opposition to legalizing those folks. 

Sasquatch:
Do you know if the CBO included the complete access to government healthcare for the illegals new citizens in their scorecard?

NCVol:
No, because the plans don't offer coverage to illegals, so why would the CBO score a provision that isn't in the plan being voted on?

Instead of allowing illegals to get insurance, we'll cover them by subsidizing the ERs and other providers who have to provide care to those uninsured illegals, which is such an awesome way to provide coverage now! 

But seriously, what is the correct policy for illegals?  If they don't get covered by their employers - this should be MANDATORY and there should be huge fines for employers of illegals who don't provide insurance - then YOU and ME will cover them by paying for ERs etc.  Otherwise, I suppose we could let them die in the streets - is that the option conservatives would prefer?  Because you either cover them up front with insurance, or on the back end by subsidizing the uncompensated care with higher premiums.  The one option that isn't reasonable is to deny them care and watch human beings die from lack of care.  So what is the right policy? 

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page