Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Closed Thread
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-02-2009, 03:55 PM   #43
Senior Member
 
chasfm11's Avatar
 
Texas Boomers Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: DFW Area, TX
Posts: 2,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspande View Post
First of all, I have to object to the title line of this thread (and initial post). No one, at least on the proponent side, has suggested "free" anything. This is a classic "Straw man". What is being proposed is that we need to have Universal Healthcare Coverage before we can even hope to get costs under control.

Why is it so difficult for some to comprehend that when people put off doctor visits due to lack of insurance until they wind up in Emergency Rooms, it costs our system much more than regular care. There are many situations where better, universal care costs less.

Not doing healthcare reform does not save the money that opponents like to claim is the cost of the proposed reform, it merely means we pay it in different ways, like higher hospital rates and higher insurance premiums. There is no free lunch, but reform offers the only chance of reducing our costs in the long run.

Another point that has been overlooked - about 1% of women are pregnant at any time so each year there must currently be around 100,000 uninsured pregnancies. The poorest of these may be covered by Medicaid but surely thousands are not. Surely pro-choice and pro-life alike should be horrified that these women face the financial coercion of the medical costs of childbirth (>$10,000 I believe) versus only a few hundred for an abortion. I am astonished that the pro-life movement hasn't made an issue of this. Universal Coverage fixes this problem, yet most pro-lifers apparently are opposing reform - go figure.
I'm sorry but I don't understand the logic.
1. There are things wrong with our health care system today. (Agreed)
2. The proposed solutions are the only way fix to it. (Strongly disagree)

What is lacking is the statistics to support the assertions. For example, what percent of the the existing costs are the result of some putting off to emergency care what could have been addressed as preventive care.

The healthcare debate is heated enough without wrapping the pro life/pro choice debate into it

For me, it is whether the reform (as prosed) will provide any fix at all. If the reform ends up costing a $1T, how does that save money? If the reform causes those already insured and happy with their coverage onto a governmental run system that could ration care, how is that a fix to anything? I do not by into the any part of a solution that says insurance reform = single payer system.
__________________

__________________
2000 Georgie Boy Landau 36' DP
2005 Saturn Vue toad
KF5-NJY
chasfm11 is offline  
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-02-2009, 04:28 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
If you'll read what I said you'll find I never suggested that "The proposed solutions are the only way fix to it (our health care system today.)". I said that Universal Coverage was the way to fix the specific problem (perverse financial incentive for abortions).

There are many proposals (3 different House bills and a couple Senate bills along with others, like single payer, which are not being considered by Congress. Obviously they can't all be the "only way to fix it". There are so many things in Health Care that need fixing, and fixing some of them will cost money while fixing others will save money. Clearly I was giving a significant example of the later, and I would hope no one interpreted that as representing the entirety of the issue.

One more thing I object to is the common practice of quoting that $1T number as the "cost" of the reform package(s). In fact much of it represents money already being spent (about 2/3 I believe) without reform, which is to be re-allocated. Imagine if a bank offered someone a refinancing deal which reduced a $1000 per month mortgage to $900 per month and the guy says "I don't know - the cost to me of this refinancing is $900 per month" rather than seeing that it saved $100 per month.
__________________

__________________
jspande is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:30 PM   #45
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
I guess if you think aborting babies is a cheap solution, why not just shoot old duffers like me when we get sick. That will save a lot of money so Obama can give "free" healthcare to the illegals. Shooting is a little drastic as the plan is to give out pain pills and withhold the expensive care which is now commonplace. Medicare is an insurance program, and I have paid in for 40 years.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 07:57 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
SeeTheUSA's Avatar
 
Winnebago Owners Club
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspande View Post
And again, where does this "freebie health care plan" phrase come from. No one has proposed any sort of "freebie". Everyone would get (and pay premiums for) health insurance. There will be subsidies to help those who can't afford to pay the full amount of the premiums.


"Freebie" --- the truth!

"Subsidies" --- the politically correct term for "Freebie."

No matter the term used, those who GIVE will need to GIVE MORE and those who TAKE get to TAKE MORE! Seems socialistic.

Good grief, who do you think "subsidizes" all this --- the Chinese???
__________________
Warren and Debbie, Deep in The Heart of Texas, 2018 Winnebago View 24D
2014 Tiffin Breeze 32BR, 2012 Winnebago Navion 24G, 2006 Winnebago View 23H
SeeTheUSA is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 08:16 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Jim Stewart's Avatar
 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne & Marathon, Florida
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspande View Post
Actually I chose France rather than other countries in the list to make the comparison more valid. France has a significant immigrant community (from Africa) and it does not have a Socialized Medical System (it's a Single Payer System where the reimbursement part is government but doctors and hospitals are private, unlike England where doctors are government employees...)

I suppose if I'd wanted to go for spectacular numbers I could have used the figures for Iceland which are around twice as low as France, but I don't feel there's a good demographic match to the US.

BTW, the whole list I used is from the Wikipedia (Google "infant mortality"), and you'll notice the US even ranks below Cuba!
Every State in the United States has programs for free and/or low cost prenatal care! It is free in the US and we have horrible infant mortality numbers.

Prenatal care is free in Cuba yet their rate is almost twice that of Japan where it is also free. Japan has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and if it is free in both Japan and France, why is Japan so much better at it than France. It's not just about the free part or the cost part, you see, statistics can be used both ways to prove and confuse.

Maybe, it's based on intelligence at conception! Maybe we should spend more money on education than care. Our average age for first time pregnancy is about normal for most industrialized nations (24.9), but our mean number is significantly lower (the age where half are greater than and half are lower than). We have many more teen births and older mother births than most countries and that can contribute to higher infant mortality rates.

Maybe we should pass a law that says you can't carry a baby to term if you are too stupid to get free and/or low cost prenatal care that is available to everyone!

So I assume that you are implying that we have 8,000 babies dying each year because expectant Mother's are too stupid to get the free or low cost prenatal care currently available in every State, the government has a bigger problem than Universal Health Care.

As I said you do not read about people dying in the streets or in the nurseries because of the cost of health care. An interesting statistic for you; if you are on Medicaid, you can expect to live once you go in a Nursing Home an average of 3.9 years. If you privately pay you can expect to live only 1.3 years. What is the logic there, you will live longer if you have no money!
__________________
2005 Safari Cheetah 38PDQ - 2009 Ford Flex
Me (Gatogonow), The Boss (DW), Honey Bunny, Maggie May and Mollie Kay (The Gatos)!
Jim Stewart is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 08:36 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Superslif's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Pond Piggies Club
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NE. Ohio USA
Posts: 4,707
I agree with most that has been said here in this thread.. What happened to the talk of taxing employer provided medical benefits? I work in a union shop where my employer pays about $150 per week and I have $35 taken out of my check every week for my medical. .....
__________________
Jim, Diane & Robert ~ NE. OH.
2018 Outdoors RV Timber Ridge 24 RKS
2014 Toyota Tundra Limited 5.7L
IRV2 Photo Album ~Let's Go Places~
Superslif is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 08:59 PM   #49
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
The $150/week is a benefit and under the proposed Democrat plan would be taxable just like your income. The $35/week is likely your portion of the premium and is in all likelihood done pretax. This would change and both would become taxable at your normal rate probably at 36% or about $67 additional along with your present $35 to bring you up to about $100 total deduction. This seems excessive to you I am sure, but you can feel good that that money will be going to provide free healthcare for those who can not afford it. Just forget the fact that they can afford their cell phone and their $50 fingernail job and their $60 hairdo. Of course, the so called Bush tax cuts will be expiring in 2010 and the amount of tax you will be paying will of course be going up. This is change you can believe in.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 09:06 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
Jim Stewart's Avatar
 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne & Marathon, Florida
Posts: 1,537
I'm fooling them all, I'm retiring and lowering my income so they can't get me. I have lost all incentive for success!
__________________
2005 Safari Cheetah 38PDQ - 2009 Ford Flex
Me (Gatogonow), The Boss (DW), Honey Bunny, Maggie May and Mollie Kay (The Gatos)!
Jim Stewart is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 09:12 PM   #51
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
I'm fooling them all, I'm retiring and lowering my income so they can't get me. I have lost all incentive for success!
.

Actually the joke is still on you (me too) in that the seniors will be the first to feel the affects of rationing and no sense in spending limited medical dollars on the old folks when they can spend it on the young, productive people. Just take you pain pill and go off and die for the good of society.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 09:40 PM   #52
Senior Member
 
milham's Avatar
 
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 192
I will accept public health care when our political representatives (you know...the guys and gals that are writing the Bill) are covered by the same plan that covers me! If it is as good as they are telling us there should be no problem with them being covered by the plan they will require me to participate in. I know that everyone is tired of hearing it but put the politicans on Social Security & Medicare and see how quickly those problems are solved.

Ron
__________________
2013 Winnebago Aspect 27K
Lives in South Western Idaho
milham is offline  
Old 08-02-2009, 10:16 PM   #53
Senior Member
 
Hooligan's Avatar
 
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Pensacola
Posts: 2,209
Infant mortality rate here is due to .... not having free universal health care, Or the cost of the war, or Haliburton, or the Christian Right, or the Oil Companies...
Again-If you need medical care, no emergency room can refuse you. There are numerous benefit programs for Children and Mothers.
Read the proposed legislation. There are several versions.... It is to provide universal health care to the mythical 43-46 million uninsured. (Today Rep. Charlie Rangel said 50 million) and the cost will be 1.6 trillion dollars. How many Uninsured??? http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...623160905.aspx

If you do not have your own or employer provided Health Insurance, YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PURCHASE GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH
Insurance. If you can't afford the premiums you will be re-imbursed, or tax credited or exempted. If YOU don't really pay for it--it is "FREE". But someone is sure going to pay for it. The "government" doesn't have any money, unless it takes it from us...

Premiums for the Government plan are zero for those eligible for Medicaid, (up to 1.33xPoverty), then 1.5% of income for up to 4x poverty level and then no more than 11% of gross income for everyone else. Your Additional cost sharing will be capped at $5000/year. (deductibles, coinsurance, copayments etc. But this cap does not include those premiums --or any out of network costs or fees for non-covered services.....)
Regardless of the medical plan you have now, in 5 to 9 years everyone will be required to be in the Government plan. THAT IS SINGLE PAYER and it is the intent of the legislation, just because it's done slowly does not mean it isn't happening.
Statistics say 85% now are satisfied with their Healthcare, that will change..

__________________
Hooligan, Pensacola, Fl -U.S. Coast Guard 1956-1985
2016 Thor Siesta Sprinter 24ST diesel
Our Pug "Lily" & "George" the Newfoundland
Hooligan is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 06:21 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Dmiles's Avatar
 
Appalachian Campers
Forest River Owners Club
Ford Super Duty Owner
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Suffolk, VA
Posts: 473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Stewart View Post
I'm fooling them all, I'm retiring and lowering my income so they can't get me. I have lost all incentive for success!
Jim, good move, oh how I wish I could join you, because it's getting much worse, very quickly out here...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009...S-Economy.html

Now that a major campaign promise is about to bite the dust, the productive, middle class American taxpayer is about to find out just how expensive free health care can be.

As the assault on the incentive for success continues...
__________________
2011 Winnebago Vista 30W
Duane, Precy, 9 year old son Matt, and Abby, our American Eskimo.
Dmiles is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 11:07 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards View Post
I guess if you think aborting babies is a cheap solution, why not just shoot old duffers like me when we get sick. That will save a lot of money so Obama can give "free" healthcare to the illegals. Shooting is a little drastic as the plan is to give out pain pills and withhold the expensive care which is now commonplace. Medicare is an insurance program, and I have paid in for 40 years.
The first line is an outrageous misrepresentation of my statements for which a apology is due. The remainder is just plain silly.
__________________
jspande is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 11:17 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards View Post
The $150/week is a benefit and under the proposed Democrat plan would be taxable just like your income. The $35/week is likely your portion of the premium and is in all likelihood done pretax. This would change and both would become taxable at your normal rate probably at 36% or about $67 additional along with your present $35 to bring you up to about $100 total deduction. This seems excessive to you I am sure, but you can feel good that that money will be going to provide free healthcare for those who can not afford it. Just forget the fact that they can afford their cell phone and their $50 fingernail job and their $60 hairdo. Of course, the so called Bush tax cuts will be expiring in 2010 and the amount of tax you will be paying will of course be going up. This is change you can believe in.
It was John McCain, not the Democrats, who proposed taxing health benefits in the last presidential campaign (Obama opposed the idea). And while the idea has been revived, I don't believe any of the Democratic proposals has ever included the average workers benefits, just the "gold-plated" plans which this clearly is not. And isn't 36% the top income bracket? My impression was that this guy is not in that bracket - few union workers are.
__________________

__________________
jspande is offline  
Closed Thread



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Sam Insurance - Good or Not? JavaJelly Class A Motorhome Discussions 18 09-15-2015 11:16 AM
Good Sam ERS vs. Coach-Net Half Dimes iRV2.com General Discussion 13 04-23-2009 06:42 PM
Good Sam CSP Don Rob iRV2.com General Discussion 6 12-14-2007 07:23 AM
Good ending but - Another "won't start" story - might help someone else in the future Virginia Alpine Coach Owner's Forum 4 10-09-2007 02:36 PM
More 2006 shakedown - good service experience Audrey & John Alpine Coach Owner's Forum 27 07-27-2005 04:45 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.