TexasCHLforum.com

SQLGeek wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

OK, thank you. Why do you object to that being considered Socialist? Is it because of the negative connotation of the word in this country? It certainly seems to fit the definition.

TxDrifter wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

SQLGeek wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

Then move to Switzerland.

SQLGeek wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

Kythas wrote:
In any system which insures over 200 million people, I'll guarantee you can find a handful of people, or even several handfuls, who have been given the shaft over the years. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim of 'record insurance company profits', of which there are none and which was a major rallying cry behind this legislation.

You just can't admit to yourself that you, along with many other people, were bamboozled, flimflammed, and jibjabbed by the government.

Let me ask you this, then. If hundreds of thousands of events such as you describe are occurring every year, as we've been lead to believe by the Democrats who were pushing for this bill, why do the major portions of it not take effect until after the next presidential election cycle? If the insurance industry is so evil and our healthcare system is in such crisis, why wait another 4 years to stop these abuses? Why don't these things take effect immediately?

By delaying the provisions of the bill until 2014 (again, conveniently after Obama's re-election bid) aren't the Democrats who ram-rodded this bill effectively condemning hundreds of thousands (their figures, not mine) of Americans to death at the hands of the evil insurance companies?

Dragonfighter wrote: Health Insurance:
In passing this health care bill, a small minority of uninsured (and by this I mean those that could not get or afford coverage) will now have insurance. There are millions that are either illegal aliens, chose to mooch of the existing system or are healthy enough they pay cash when they visit a doctor or ER (BTW, it is amazing how the bill is discounted when they realize you are paying cash).
Now, under this system the people will be forced to buy insurance or be fined on their returns. In my daughter's and son-in-law's case, they make a decent living but the health insurance available to them is way expensive, so they have an emergency fund. They eat healthy foods and use homeopathic remedies when appropriate. BTW, you may as well say good bye to your health supplements as they will now be under regulation (read restriction) by the government owned insurance complex. Anyway, people on a budget will be further penalized because they can't afford the outrageous plans.
The argument has been made that you can still buy private insurance, let's look at that. The companies are now restricted from exclusion or preclusion which will throw the actuarial tables upside down. The cost of doing business will increase as they will be paying out more and more in claims. They will have to raise premiums even for the most basic of coverages, ration or collapse. They will be priced out of the market and the government company will soon have a cornered market. And now we have a government run industry that is a large portion of our economy.
This is not health care reform, this is insurance reform/takeover. History shows us that a fascist government starts by taking over private industry. Banks, automotive, now health care. How does this effect guns?

Winston Churchill said what history has est! abolished, "No socialist system can be established without a political police."

sjfcontrol wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

TxDrifter wrote: Government does not exist to help people.

“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.”- Alexander Hamilton

Ah! So you finally agree that the purpose of Government is NOT to help people. And now claim it is to "constrain" them! Our Government is a raging success!!

TxDrifter wrote: Government does not exist to help people.

Kythas wrote:
True, our lives will continue and the earth's crust will not fall into the ocean. But our country will go bankrupt.

Kythas wrote: Very interesting, indeed, and a point to you, sir.

timdsmith72 wrote: So tell me again how it's Constitutional for them to FORCE me to buy anything?

driver8 wrote:I read the 3 links. Still don't see anything that requires anyone to travel or pay for car insurance

timdsmith72 wrote:

marksiwel wrote:please post something that supports your claim that its a privilege

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's not a very long document. You should read it some time . Nowhere in there does it give the government the right to FORCE us to buy anything.

driver8 wrote:Haven't been able to find anything on the cases you have. Sounds to me like the right to travel is not the right to drive a car on public roads. You answer my question. Do you have the right not to travel?