The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102

Thread: Individual Mandate Delayed

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    796

    Default

    I hear so much of how bad it is or is going to be, yet, the ones that want to repeal the law, have not offered any alternatives. Other than keep it the way it was. We see how our system worked before this law was attempted. Give me some sound alternatives, not just pouting because the Dems got it through. I wonder how many here would have the same stance, had it been an idea pushed through by a Republican administration.
    Gerry,
    I have more belief in humanity than to think that the govt would deny treatment, especially since they are the ones that established it. We have just as much energy wealth as Canada, if we would just uncap the wells we have and let the oil flow here. I spent quite a bit of time in Canada this past summer for work. I spoke to many natives there, and didn't find one person that did not like the Canadian health care plan. Their taxes are higher, but they seemed fine with it, knowing that if they needed medical care, it was available. Close friend of mine up there spent 6 weeks in the hospital with a perforated stomach and never paid a dime. Doesn't sound too bad to me.

  2. #32
    Senior Member Migillicutty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Aubrey, Tx
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    I have more belief in humanity than to think that the govt would deny treatment, especially since they are the ones that established it.
    I see you're not much of a history buff.

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Migillicutty View Post
    I see you're not much of a history buff.
    So give me a sound solution to the healthcare debacle we are experiencing. My employer encourages out of the box thinking. If an idea is presented and you object to the change, you need to be able to give a good reason not to at least give the change a fair try. Just saying no, with no alternatives, is highly frowned up.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Do any of the people wanting to repeal this law have any solid alternatives? I haven't heard any. Somebody please direct me where I can find an alternative to the law, other than going back to the "old way" of doing things.

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    .................................................. .................................................. ..................
    I have more belief in humanity than to think that the govt would deny treatment, ..............................................
    .................................................. ............................................
    News flash....... they already deny treatment for some things. My eye doc tells me that the government has decided he can not operate in some cases till they say so. This is a lately decided on rule not a long standing rule.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SW Minnesota
    Posts
    2,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    Do any of the people wanting to repeal this law have any solid alternatives? I haven't heard any. Somebody please direct me where I can find an alternative to the law, other than going back to the "old way" of doing things.
    We have been looking for a better solution for the better part of my lifetime and no politician has came up with it. At this point we know that Obamacare is a giant step in the wrong direction and repealing it would be progress. Why wait for a "solid alternative", when we know that the old way it better than Obamacare? Remember this?
    Last edited by mngundog; 03-14-2014 at 11:20 PM.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charly_t View Post
    News flash....... they already deny treatment for some things. My eye doc tells me that the government has decided he can not operate in some cases till they say so. This is a lately decided on rule not a long standing rule.
    So do private insurance plans. They make you jump through hoops to get any procedure approved. So what is the difference? Which obamacare plan do you have? Bronze, silver, gold?

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,087

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shinyhead View Post
    So do private insurance plans. They make you jump through hoops to get any procedure approved. So what is the difference? Which obamacare plan do you have? Bronze, silver, gold?
    Missed point again.............the more that government gets involved in our health care the less choice we and our doc have in what we can do.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    796

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charly_t View Post
    Missed point again.............the more that government gets involved in our health care the less choice we and our doc have in what we can do.
    I am missing something. let's look at a comparison. Old way: Insurance company dictates to patient and doctor what procedures the patient can have. They can also decline to sell you coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

    Obamacare: Govt dictates to patient and doctor what procedures the patient can have. You cannot be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.
    So what difference does it make who is dictating what procedures you can have? Both are telling you the same thing. The insurance company is acting the same way the govt is and you are fine with that. That makes about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine. Unless of course, you or someone close to you has a vested interest in the insurance industry.

  10. #40
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,828

    Default

    Shinyhead, "coverage" is not the same as actual health care. For example, the people who have plans where their condition is covered, except the drugs to treat their condition are not covered. Oops?

    Problem with O-care is that it revamped the whole system to fix a problem for 15%. The other 85% were happy with their system. Why not address the problem specifically? The most support was for caring for people with pre-existing conditions who actually wanted health care coverage.

    When the govt started the risk pool for PEC that they ran out of money long before they had the # of such individuals signed up, even though the #s who signed up were far less than those expected to sign up. That proved them ignorant of the most elementary actuarial principles. Sick people are more expensive to care for. Insurance companies know that. Did the govt bother to ask the insurance companies for their actuarial information so that they could establish a sustainable program? Did the insurance companies tell govt that their proposal was going to sink, but govt never told us? Very possible based on the other misleading info that was promoted to pass the law.

    Remember, the 15% uninsured was not ALL due to PECs. Some of the uninsured might be those not eligible for Medicaid, but still too poor for coverage. Another portion were people who simply didn't want it. How many might be homeless people? Drug addicts? Criminals wanting to stay below the radar?

    If govt was so bad at handling just this one piece of the puzzle, how could we possibly trust them to get the rest of it right.

    Medicaid is a good example of the lack of concern of govt. By making Medicaid payments as low as they are, many doctors & hospitals won't take Medicaid patients at all. Evidently, those providers feel they will go bankrupt trying to treat patients at such reduced compensation. The intention has been to reduce Medicare payments so they are closer to Medicaid. Then seniors will also have a problem finding a provider that will accept their coverage.

    Will the govt have to force providers to provide service? In the UK the doctors are employees of the govt.

    The rhetoric is that the govt "cares". We are finding out that is not always the case.

    There are good humans and bad humans. Good humans outnumber the criminals fortunately. Some of those bad humans are in public service. We see examples of that regularly.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •