Romney vibrating on Health Care Reform

[Guest]

delete

[_krose]

Romney plans on increasing the net interest payout on savings and bonds, while increasing the rate for borrowing money.

What's your source for this? Where does he say that's his plan?

And in what world does the president set interest rates?

[_Drifting]

An insight into Brother Romney's character...

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... itt_romney

[_hatersinmyward]

What's your source for this? Where does he say that's his plan?

And in what world does the president set interest rates?

It was on the CBS evening news a day or so after my post.

Can't a source link.

God told me before hand. What's it to You?

Perhaps if I attend sacrament meeting and pay my tithes God might give me the power to rule the world(as opposed to being the spawn of Satan trying to protect his loved ones, for the bazillionth time)

SUPER PAC THAT BATMAN!!!

[_hatersinmyward]

I think immediate life threatening conditions or terminal illness should be covered 100% by the Government.

Quality Universal Healthcare wouldn't cover the flu, headaches, sprained ankles, sore throats, etc. If people want help covering those costs, they'll buy insurance.

That model keeps the system intact and does not force people into bankruptcy.

Which is whole F****** issue.

[_MeDotOrg]

I think immediate life threatening conditions or terminal illness should be covered 100% by the Government.

Quality Universal Healthcare wouldn't cover the flu, headaches, sprained ankles, sore throats, etc. If people want help covering those costs, they'll buy insurance.

That model keeps the system intact and does not force people into bankruptcy.

Which is whole F****** issue.

Preventative healthcare can often lead to early detection of illnesses that are far more difficult and expensive to treat if they go undetected. And who determines which illnesses are 'life-threatening'?

A system that only treats people with life-threatening illnesses is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[_Kevin Graham]

No comments from the peanut gallery?

[_hatersinmyward]

Preventative healthcare can often lead to early detection of illnesses that are far more difficult and expensive to treat if they go undetected. And who determines which illnesses are 'life-threatening'?

That's the point too expensive!!! It would cost too damn much to have every person under screened for possible life threatening illness.

A guy enters a hospital bleeding severely, if he doesn't get life saving surgery right away he's going to die. = Free Healthcare

A guy gets cancer, people with cancer die more often than not. = Free Healthcare

A guy tears his knee up playing sports, If he doesn't get surgery he can't walk. = Out of Pockt/Insurance

Get the Idea?

A system that only treats people with life-threatening illnesses is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Is putting the insurance companies out of business good for the economy?

Is taking vasts amounts of money away form health care professionals good for the economy?

Is running the drug companies out of business foolish? (They need the money from the HMO's to stay in business)


Why have healthcare in general if you can't heal people.




That's the most idiotic argument I've heard.

[_hatersinmyward]

Romney plans on increasing the net interest payout on savings and bonds, while increasing the rate for borrowing money.

What's your source for this? Where does he say that's his plan?

And in what world does the president set interest rates?

Did you see the video where Romney gave a response to our comments at a press conference Krose? They showed a clip of the Q&A on Lenno.

Obama doesn't care obviously, He'd just turn that hunk of air bus right around just to avoid the situation. Then come into town via RV-1.

Exactly how is this cover up going to work again?

[_MeDotOrg]

Preventative healthcare can often lead to early detection of illnesses that are far more difficult and expensive to treat if they go undetected. And who determines which illnesses are 'life-threatening'?

That's the point too expensive!!! It would cost too damn much to have every person under screened for possible life threatening illness.

A guy enters a hospital bleeding severely, if he doesn't get life saving surgery right away he's going to die. = Free Healthcare

A guy gets cancer, people with cancer die more often than not. = Free Healthcare

A guy tears his knee up playing sports, If he doesn't get surgery he can't walk. = Out of Pockt/Insurance

Get the Idea?

Again, my point about the guy with cancer: by the time he becomes aware of it, it could very well be fatal. With early detection, a lot of people WON'T die 'more often than not'. And it's cheaper to treat them.

What someone with high blood pressure or diabetes? If left untreated, it could lead to a stroke, which could make him an invalid for the rest of his life. Doesn't it make sense for to pay for blood pressure or diabetes medication?

The "guy who tears up his knee playing sports" (Actually happened to me. Fortunately I had insurance through my employer or I'd have been out $20,000 in the 1989. Lord knows how much it would be today.). What if he DOESN'T have health insurance? If a hospital treats him, it's just an unregulated cost to the healthcare system. If a hospital doesn't treat him, he becomes an invalid. He could go on disability and become a ward of the state. How is that cheaper?

A system that only treats people with life-threatening illnesses is penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Is putting the insurance companies out of business good for the economy?

Is taking vasts amounts of money away form health care professionals good for the economy?

Is running the drug companies out of business foolish? (They need the money from the HMO's to stay in business)

Why have healthcare in general if you can't heal people.

That's the most idiotic argument I've heard.

Somehow most of Western World limps on with some form or another of socialized health care. Most Western European Countries have life expectancy rates that are higher and infant mortality rates that are much lower than the United States.

Drug companies and health providers are still in business.

Germany requires people making less than $70,000 a year to buy health insurance. They have 200 competing non-profit insurance companies. Currently I'm insured through Kaiser-Permanente, which is a non-profit health plan. Much of the world finds health-care outside of a 'for-profit' model.

I was in school during the Cold War, and we used to have Social Studies books that compared how long a Soviet Union Citizen had to work for a loaf of bread compared to an American. I'd like to see a textbook compare how long a person making minimum wage whose employer does not provide health insurance has to pay for health care services compared to other countries.

Why have healthcare in general if you can't heal people.

I quite agree with you. Some people say that before the affordable health care act the United States had the finest health care system in the world. Over 50 million Americans were not insured.

The question I would like answered is: How many Americans can be uninsured and still be the finest health care system in the world? 100 million? 150 Million? When does the number of untreated Americans begin to factor in to our evaluation of our health care system?