| Author | Post |
|---|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:51 pm |
|
What is this obsession of yours with COBRA to the exclusion of everything else? It is not and will not be the answer to the national health care problem. Your version only covers emergency care, not preventative care before it becomes critical.... do you have a one track mind? You sound like a broken record. As to the 72%. try watching something besides Fox News.
If you go to http://www.cobrainsurance.com or google it up, you can find out what COBRA is all about or don't you want to be confused with facts?
By the way, if you feel so strongly about the taxpayer, I hope you're not using or planning to use Medicare.... it's taxpayer subsidized.
Last edited on Wed Jul 8th, 2009 05:08 pm by rfolland
|
Sun City Watch
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:44 pm |
|
Why not provide facts? Where are your facts on COBRA?
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:29 pm |
|
RF, the sad thing is anyone claiming poverty can get all of what you have mentioned in any ER in the US since 1986. Medical care for those claiming poverty is free except for the taxpayer.
And that 72% poll you claim is real is NOT! Most Americans do not want the government option if it means rationing which it will.
rfolland wrote:
AF Pilot:
Here's something else you can choke on. When I lived in CA, there was a series of articles in the L.A. Times about well-to-to South Americans on tourist visas flying to LAX, getting in a taxi and going to UCLA Medical Center, pleading poverty and getting expensive care for free that would have cost a fortune, if available, in their home country. Under the law, UCLA had to take in indigents.
Of course, in Maricopa Country, we could always have sheriff Joe station someone in each ER to check the immigration status of every one who presents themself for treatment, arresting those who can't pass muster.
The real discussion isn't about emergency care, it's about routine things like pre-natal care, well baby checkups, childhood immunizations, screening for diabetes, heart conditions, other diseases and all those other routine non-emergency medical requirements.... you seem to keep singing the same old song about emergency care never discussing the routine care that many people can't afford... unless you'd rather the routine items be ignored until they become emergencies threatening the life of the patient. A cost effective solution could be a program that gives access to "Doc-in-a-box" or urgent care facilities. It's so easy to turn a blind eye to real pressing problems when all you're concerned with is your wallet. Again, I repeat what I've said before, 72 per cent of the American people want and are willing to pay for a government option. The right wingers lost the election and control of the national legislature... Deal with it, or go off and sulk until the next election.
Of course, the medical establishment is spending over a million dollars a day to preserve the status quo.
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 05:35 am |
|
AF Pilot:
Here's something else you can choke on. When I lived in CA, there was a series of articles in the L.A. Times about well-to-to South Americans on tourist visas flying to LAX, getting in a taxi and going to UCLA Medical Center, pleading poverty and getting expensive care for free that would have cost a fortune, if available, in their home country. Under the law, UCLA had to take in indigents.
Of course, in Maricopa Country, we could always have sheriff Joe station someone in each ER to check the immigration status of every one who presents themself for treatment, arresting those who can't pass muster.
The real discussion isn't about emergency care, it's about routine things like pre-natal care, well baby checkups, childhood immunizations, screening for diabetes, heart conditions, other diseases and all those other routine non-emergency medical requirements.... you seem to keep singing the same old song about emergency care never discussing the routine care that many people can't afford... unless you'd rather the routine items be ignored until they become emergencies threatening the life of the patient. A cost effective solution could be a program that gives access to "Doc-in-a-box" or urgent care facilities. It's so easy to turn a blind eye to real pressing problems when all you're concerned with is your wallet. Again, I repeat what I've said before, 72 per cent of the American people want and are willing to pay for a government option. The right wingers lost the election and control of the national legislature... Deal with it, or go off and sulk until the next election.
Of course, the medical establishment is spending over a million dollars a day to preserve the status quo.
Last edited on Wed Jul 8th, 2009 06:54 am by rfolland
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:59 am |
|
It most certainly is. Anyone whether they are American or not that live in the USA can go into any ER in the 50 States and 4 Territories and get first come first served high quality medical care for no cost except to the American Taxpayer. I know personally of several undocumented aliens that received no cost ER healthcare for themselves and their children without any payment of any sort. In fact, one woman received a cranial facial surgery at a teaching hospital for no cost which would have cost an American several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So, don't say that our uninsured cannot get high quality medical care. They most certainly can simply by saying they cannot pay at any ER in the land.
Ain't America great? Sure it is.
Sun City Watch wrote:
COBRA is not free:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 02:16 am |
|
The figure I remember for COBRA for people who are laid offf and lose healthcare insurance was about $500/month, but that was about 10 years ago.
|
Sun City Watch
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 01:56 am |
|
COBRA is not free:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_consumer_cobra.HTML
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:52 am |
|
COBRA is free for those who can't or won't pay. Look it up. And yes, ER is expensive, but the cost is shunted off on the taxpayer. That is you.
Sun City Watch wrote:
COBRA is not free!
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 09:50 pm |
|
Emergency room care is the most expensive care available. Wouldn't a basic care level be cheaper?
|
Sun City Watch
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 08:50 pm |
|
COBRA is not free!
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 08:40 pm |
|
You couldn't be more wrong. As I said earlier, health care is available for all that live in the USA under the law passed by Congress in 1986 called COBRA. It gives free medical care to all that can't afford it in any Emergency Room in the US. So what is the problem?
rfolland wrote:
I think I see your position. The fact that millions of your fellow citizens face medical hardship and even death due to lack of treatment is less important than your money. I love fiscal conservatives because of their great humanitarianism. One thing that you do overlook is that 72% of your fellow citizens want some sort of Federal health care minimums. Of course, the health care industry is solidly behind you, working to prevent any change to the status quo and their bottom line.
|
AREYOUKIDDING ME
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 03:51 pm |
|
rfolland wrote: I think I see your position. The fact that millions of your fellow citizens face medical hardship and even death due to lack of treatment is less important than your money. I love fiscal conservatives because of their great humanitarianism. One thing that you do overlook is that 72% of your fellow citizens want some sort of Federal health care minimums. Of course, the health care industry is solidly behind you, working to prevent any change to the status quo and their bottom line.
I'm no expert...but isn't there already health care for seniors and the needy? That being the case, the citizens facing medical hardship are those who are working. I work and my employer pays health benefits. Not everyone is so fortunate, I understand. But we all know that "free" health care is not an option. I will still have to pay the government so that I can have mandatory health care. So from each paycheck, I will have Federal Taxes, State Taxes, Social Security, and then, Health care Taxes withheld. How much of a paycheck does that leave me with? What about my fellow workers who cannot afford any more of their pay being withheld?
You see, you might consider someone such as myself who is worried about, not only the quality of future health care, but the simple ability to provide a living for my family without having to take a second job, you might consider me a "fiscal conservative" as well. You will probably take the extra step and consider me inhumane. I say that I am a realist.
If we lived in a better world, many of the people now receiving Social Security benefits, who are thriving on the golf courses of Sun City because they also have a pension or made money from real estate or junk bonds or whatever, they would deny that monthly Social Security check. Social Security is going broke. I would suggest that this is your opportunity to be a great humanitarian and return any unneeded money ASAP. My guess is, however, that you or anyone like you, would never do such a thing. My guess also, in regards to "free health care" is that you, or anyone like you, would wait in line at your nearest doctor's office for every ache and pain, every sneeze or cough, wanting pills for this or that, simply because it is "free".
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 02:50 pm |
|
Amen, well put.
|
Sun City Watch
Member
| Joined: | Sun Nov 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 300 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 05:35 am |
|
But he and many others do not understand because it does not effect them! They could care less.
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 04:38 am |
|
I think I see your position. The fact that millions of your fellow citizens face medical hardship and even death due to lack of treatment is less important than your money. I love fiscal conservatives because of their great humanitarianism. One thing that you do overlook is that 72% of your fellow citizens want some sort of Federal health care minimums. Of course, the health care industry is solidly behind you, working to prevent any change to the status quo and their bottom line.
Last edited on Tue Jul 7th, 2009 04:43 am by rfolland
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 01:13 am |
|
The military that I belonged to did not do the Dental for Dependents only Active Duty. That is what I was referring to.
So, who will pay for all that you advocate that the government take on. Because someone (Taxpayer) must pay the bill or we print more money and make our dollar worthless. Weimar Republic here we come.
rfolland wrote:
Whose military were you in? During my 20+ years active service, my dental care was free and after retirement, I could buy insurance through Tricare. Tricare Prime only cost $450/yr for my whole family with $12 co pays and $3 and $9 prescriptions. A pretty good deal. Cobra for a laid-off individual pushed $500/month. The tragedy is that 10% of our population has nothing. We have an infant mortality rate to be ashamed of and we are the only industrialized nation that does not provide some sort of non-emergency health care for their citizens. Granted, you must think that this is OK, but then I'd be ashamed of you. I guess healthcare doesn't qualify as a part of the Constitutional aim of "providing for the common good."
As for income tax, the United States passed the income tax amendment years ago to make an "unfair" graduated income tax structure constitutional. The idea being that those who could afford more should contribute more. Prior to that, the Federal government could only have a flat tax. However, the "Flat Tax" that is proposed for Arizona isn't flat. It is another regressive tax, pushing the burder down the income scale. A true flat tax wouldn't allow for deductions for such things as mortgage interest expense which is a nice plum for homeowners, effectively lowering their tax rate as compared to renters earning the same salary. Of course we all realize that the lower levels of society are the renters.
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 09:52 pm |
|
Whose military were you in? During my 20+ years active service, my dental care was free and after retirement, I could buy insurance through Tricare. Tricare Prime only cost $450/yr for my whole family with $12 co pays and $3 and $9 prescriptions. A pretty good deal. Cobra for a laid-off individual pushed $500/month. The tragedy is that 10% of our population has nothing. We have an infant mortality rate to be ashamed of and we are the only industrialized nation that does not provide some sort of non-emergency health care for their citizens. Granted, you must think that this is OK, but then I'd be ashamed of you. I guess healthcare doesn't qualify as a part of the Constitutional aim of "providing for the common good."
As for income tax, the United States passed the income tax amendment years ago to make an "unfair" graduated income tax structure constitutional. The idea being that those who could afford more should contribute more. Prior to that, the Federal government could only have a flat tax. However, the "Flat Tax" that is proposed for Arizona isn't flat. It is another regressive tax, pushing the burder down the income scale. A true flat tax wouldn't allow for deductions for such things as mortgage interest expense which is a nice plum for homeowners, effectively lowering their tax rate as compared to renters earning the same salary. Of course we all realize that the lower levels of society are the renters.
Last edited on Mon Jul 6th, 2009 10:16 pm by rfolland
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 08:38 pm |
|
Active Duty Military do get medical care at no cost, this is true, but retired military must pay an annual fee for Tricare, so it is not free. Active duty and retired military must pay for their own dental care.
Additionally, I have been employed in the private sector and have paid for my own medical and dental care through insurance premiums just like anyone else.
BTW, don't you think active duty military deserve and have earned their medical care since they are on call 24-7? I do. They have agreed to go anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances to defend the nation. That deserves something.
Sorry about your daughter's friend, but do all of us owe the medical costs for everyone? And as I said earlier, no American can be denied medical care at any ER in the US even if they can't pay.
Who gets a tax cut! 98% of income taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners. The bottom 50% only pay 2% of income taxes. So it sounds like the bottom 50% are not doing too bad tax wise.
rfolland wrote:
Retired AF Pilot:
Like some retired military you obviously have no concept of what someone making 10-12 bucks an hour goes through trying to provide adequate medical care for their family... "Do we eat or pay the doctor for non-emergency care?" You have had what is basically socialized medicine all your adult life for you and your family. You got free medical care while on active duty. On retirement, there was Champus/Tricare and when you hit 65 years of age there was Medicare and Tricare For Life. How many folks working at low end jobs get that kind of deal? My daughter has a friend who worked for a company that did not provide health insurance. He had to borrow from his parents so he could go to Mexico City for chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery. I'm sure you would say, "Gee, that's too bad. Tough luck."
As to the flat tax where people making over $250,000/yr get a tax cut while the middle and lower middle class get tax hikes, it is just a societal correction. Historically, the function of the lower echelons of society has been to subsidize the lifestyle of the upper echelons. The affluent American middle class of the '50s, '60s, and early 70s was a fluke. We are devolving into a two-class society.
|
Lorenucia
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 04:31 pm |
|
| I couldn't have said it better.
|
rfolland
Member
| Joined: | Wed Mar 25th, 2009 |
| Location: | SCW |
| Posts: | 162 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 05:21 am |
|
Retired AF Pilot:
Like some retired military you obviously have no concept of what someone making 10-12 bucks an hour goes through trying to provide adequate medical care for their family... "Do we eat or pay the doctor for non-emergency care?" You have had what is basically socialized medicine all your adult life for you and your family. You got free medical care while on active duty. On retirement, there was Champus/Tricare and when you hit 65 years of age there was Medicare and Tricare For Life. How many folks working at low end jobs get that kind of deal? My daughter has a friend who worked for a company that did not provide health insurance. He had to borrow from his parents so he could go to Mexico City for chemotherapy after colon cancer surgery. I'm sure you would say, "Gee, that's too bad. Tough luck."
As to the flat tax where people making over $250,000/yr get a tax cut while the middle and lower middle class get tax hikes, it is just a societal correction. Historically, the function of the lower echelons of society has been to subsidize the lifestyle of the upper echelons. The affluent American middle class of the '50s, '60s, and early 70s was a fluke. We are devolving into a two-class society.
|
Retired AF Pilot
Member
| Joined: | Wed Apr 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 172 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 30th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
So the local governments will have to make their case for spending to the local citizens and it they can't then they will have to cut costs and it can be done without cutting police and essential services. This gloom and doom scenario is always the fall back position of Liberals and the Democrat party. This was predicted in Orange County in the 1990s and the voters did not buy it and forced the county board of supervisors to cut costs and taxes. The police, hospitals and essential services continued without pause. True, some nice to do programs did go, but maybe they didn't need to be on the government dole in the first place.
Furthermore, as far as health services go for the poor and needy, under the 1986 Cobra law passed by the US Congress, no one can be denied essential medical care in any Emergency Room in the Good Ole US of A. You may have to wait 2 to 3 hours, but it is free. And that is why medical costs go up for the rest of us because we have to pay for indigent medical care that they do not pay for. Some one has to pay. No free lunch.
Lorenucia wrote: An email I sent to Sun City Senator Burns:
This Republican proposed budget will have the effect of raising taxes. It dips into city government funds and cuts monies that have traditionally gone to them. Local governments are already struggling and will be forced either to cut essential services like police and firefighters or raise taxes. Also program cuts to the poor and to programs for children's health will result in more people using the emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. This means longer wait times. It also means that the bills that these people are unable to pay will be passed along in higher hospital bills for those with insurance. Ever wonder why an aspirin in the hospital is so expensive? These same costs wind up costing us in the form of higher premiums. Cuts to higher education have serious implications for our students many of whom may no longer be able to afford college. It could dim the valley's chances of attracting high tech companies as the education level of our residents decline. I was all for a sales tax increase to spare many of the social programs that are so vital to the citizens of this state. I have now decided to vote against such a tax in the light of the proposed flat income tax. This shifts the tax burden from the rich to the people who are the least able to pay taxes. It will be a tax cut for the wealthiest citizens and a tax increase for the poorest. I urge everyone to vote against the sales tax increase if it comes up for a vote. Let this state reap the consequences of having a Republican dominated legislature. At least when we had Janet, we knew irresponsible budgets would never have gotten past her desk. One last point that I would like to make is that the Republicans in the legislature might be in the majority, but the Democrats represent almost the same number of constituents. The Democrats are being completely left out of the whole budget process. I am going to urge all Democrats in the legislature to urge their constituents to vote no on the proposed sales tax hike. You are unfortunately my representative. Believe me when I tell you that I shall be actively campaigning against you in the future.
Last edited on Tue Jun 30th, 2009 12:58 am by Retired AF Pilot
|
Lorenucia
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 9th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 33 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:41 pm |
|
An email I sent to Sun City Senator Burns:
This Republican proposed budget will have the effect of raising taxes. It dips into city government funds and cuts monies that have traditionally gone to them. Local governments are already struggling and will be forced either to cut essential services like police and firefighters or raise taxes. Also program cuts to the poor and to programs for children's health will result in more people using the emergency rooms as their primary care doctors. This means longer wait times. It also means that the bills that these people are unable to pay will be passed along in higher hospital bills for those with insurance. Ever wonder why an aspirin in the hospital is so expensive? These same costs wind up costing us in the form of higher premiums. Cuts to higher education have serious implications for our students many of whom may no longer be able to afford college. It could dim the valley's chances of attracting high tech companies as the education level of our residents decline. I was all for a sales tax increase to spare many of the social programs that are so vital to the citizens of this state. I have now decided to vote against such a tax in the light of the proposed flat income tax. This shifts the tax burden from the rich to the people who are the least able to pay taxes. It will be a tax cut for the wealthiest citizens and a tax increase for the poorest. I urge everyone to vote against the sales tax increase if it comes up for a vote. Let this state reap the consequences of having a Republican dominated legislature. At least when we had Janet, we knew irresponsible budgets would never have gotten past her desk. One last point that I would like to make is that the Republicans in the legislature might be in the majority, but the Democrats represent almost the same number of constituents. The Democrats are being completely left out of the whole budget process. I am going to urge all Democrats in the legislature to urge their constituents to vote no on the proposed sales tax hike. You are unfortunately my representative. Believe me when I tell you that I shall be actively campaigning against you in the future.
Last edited on Mon Jun 29th, 2009 08:42 pm by Lorenucia
|
Current time is 08:49 am | |
|