Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

I know a woman here in South Carolina who was misdiagnosed as having MS, only after years of being on double digit meds to "combat" the MS. Once she was told of the mistake, a physician put her on more medication. To date, she takes TWENTY THREE meds a day, has no disability benefits coming in and her husband's hours have been cut (works in automotive industry) making them behind on their mortgage and car payments. And some think we DON'T need a public plan to help the less fortunate?!

I will continue to pay my $60.00 for my 90 day supply of blood pressure meds because I can afford, but there are some who just can't and NEED OUR HELP. Funny though, my last insurance plan cost for Diovan was $35.00 but it still doesn't hurt me.

Today, July 7, 2009, I 100% support President Obama's plans for universal health care.

catamount man wrote:http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

I know a woman here in South Carolina who was misdiagnosed as having MS, only after years of being on double digit meds to "combat" the MS. Once she was told of the mistake, a physician put her on more medication. To date, she takes TWENTY THREE meds a day, has no disability benefits coming in and her husband's hours have been cut (works in automotive industry) making them behind on their mortgage and car payments. And some think we DON'T need a public plan to help the less fortunate?!

I will continue to pay my $60.00 for my 90 day supply of blood pressure meds because I can afford, but there are some who just can't and NEED OUR HELP. Funny though, my last insurance plan cost for Diovan was $35.00 but it still doesn't hurt me.

Today, July 7, 2009, I 100% support President Obama's plans for universal health care.

And tomorrow, July 8, 2009, you will vehemently denounce him as the anti-Christ.

Love ya catmounter.

Ya...
This whole thing with Catamount has gotten a little weird for my taste...

One day it's a blathering tirade
The next day it's peace love and happiness
a few hours later it's: I'm a danger to society
followed by another blathering tirade...

I give up are you on..? I can't even guess...

There are more than enough places to donate your money C-man if you want to help provide this woman with health care. I would be glad to help her out, we do this through our church a lot, but it is not the government's job to force Americans to pay for other people's health care. It's just not. Health care is not an inalienable right.

ASUMountaineer wrote:There are more than enough places to donate your money C-man if you want to help provide this woman with health care. I would be glad to help her out, we do this through our church a lot, but it is not the government's job to force Americans to pay for other people's health care. It's just not. Health care is not an inalienable right.

Even states can establish health care systems if they want...in fact, that's where decisions like this should be made...

But, those politicians are too weak to face the consequences (taxes) and want the federal government to foot the bill (universial health care)...

If we removed things from the federal budget that are not a federal responsibility per the Constitution (health care, education, welfare, housing, to name a few), the federal budget could be greatly reduced...then states that want health care, better schools, etc, could afford to tax the people who want that service...

States that don't want a high a level of service are free to keep their taxes lower...

catamount man wrote:http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

I know a woman here in South Carolina who was misdiagnosed as having MS, only after years of being on double digit meds to "combat" the MS. Once she was told of the mistake, a physician put her on more medication. To date, she takes TWENTY THREE meds a day, has no disability benefits coming in and her husband's hours have been cut (works in automotive industry) making them behind on their mortgage and car payments. And some think we DON'T need a public plan to help the less fortunate?!

I will continue to pay my $60.00 for my 90 day supply of blood pressure meds because I can afford, but there are some who just can't and NEED OUR HELP. Funny though, my last insurance plan cost for Diovan was $35.00 but it still doesn't hurt me.

Today, July 7, 2009, I 100% support President Obama's plans for universal health care.

But the woman already has private health insurance (sounds like that anyway) so how excatly does this example support your arguement that universal healthcare is needed? Your example supports the conclusion that many doctors are idiots and prescribe way too many meds. If she got off the meds she may function better. Also it sure sounds like she would qualify for disability benefits, and perhaps she should hire an attorney. There are already safety net in place to help people in this situation such as disability and partial unemploymemt.

Col Hogan wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:There are more than enough places to donate your money C-man if you want to help provide this woman with health care. I would be glad to help her out, we do this through our church a lot, but it is not the government's job to force Americans to pay for other people's health care. It's just not. Health care is not an inalienable right.

Even states can establish health care systems if they want...in fact, that's where decisions like this should be made...

But, those politicians are too weak to face the consequences (taxes) and want the federal government to foot the bill (universial health care)...

If we removed things from the federal budget that are not a federal responsibility per the Constitution (health care, education, welfare, housing, to name a few), the federal budget could be greatly reduced...then states that want health care, better schools, etc, could afford to tax the people who want that service...

States that don't want a high a level of service are free to keep their taxes lower...

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you in principle about education and health care but I have to ask whether there might be some reason to support mimimum federal requirements for education and possibly education?

Education
First, it might not be written into the Constitution, but America is the land of opportunity. Opportunity begins with education; if poor people don't have access to a quality education then they have considerably less hope of climbing out of their current situation. I understand that if some states have quality education and others don't than people can move from the lower education states to the higher ones but in general, poorer people have a more difficult time moving than those with money. The people with money will leave the lower education states, those states will lose revenue and their educational system will decline further. A downward spiral will likely occur leaving the people left there stuck at the bottom of the barrel with little hope of getting out. The more people there are stuck in these dire straights, the greater the chance that they will attempt to take with force what they cannot achieve in another manner.

Second, people are America's greatest asset. Shouldn't we as a nation invest in that asset in order to maintain our position in the world?

I will admit that the current system(s) of education are not working but I would argue that there is strategic value for the government to attempt to make sure that a quality education is available to all.

Health Care
I'm not nearly as sure about this one but it is something I have begun to consider. Health Care in America is broken: it's expensive for those that have it and too many people have little or no coverage. Is the cost and availability of health care having a negative impact on American companies' ability to compete with foreign competition? Is there strategic value (for reasons similar to why education is important) in attempting to make sure that minimal health care is available to all citizens? I don't think the program being pushed by the more liberal members of Congress is the answer but I'm pretty sure that sticking with what we have now isn't the answer either.

Thoughts?

Do you really want the government to control your Health care?

As long as the government runs health care half as well as they run the USPS and Amtrak, we're all in great shape!

UNI88 wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Even states can establish health care systems if they want...in fact, that's where decisions like this should be made...

But, those politicians are too weak to face the consequences (taxes) and want the federal government to foot the bill (universial health care)...

If we removed things from the federal budget that are not a federal responsibility per the Constitution (health care, education, welfare, housing, to name a few), the federal budget could be greatly reduced...then states that want health care, better schools, etc, could afford to tax the people who want that service...

States that don't want a high a level of service are free to keep their taxes lower...

I understand where you're coming from and I agree with you in principle about education and health care but I have to ask whether there might be some reason to support mimimum federal requirements for education and possibly education?

Education
First, it might not be written into the Constitution, but America is the land of opportunity. Opportunity begins with education; if poor people don't have access to a quality education then they have considerably less hope of climbing out of their current situation. I understand that if some states have quality education and others don't than people can move from the lower education states to the higher ones but in general, poorer people have a more difficult time moving than those with money. The people with money will leave the lower education states, those states will lose revenue and their educational system will decline further. A downward spiral will likely occur leaving the people left there stuck at the bottom of the barrel with little hope of getting out. The more people there are stuck in these dire straights, the greater the chance that they will attempt to take with force what they cannot achieve in another manner.

Second, people are America's greatest asset. Shouldn't we as a nation invest in that asset in order to maintain our position in the world?

I will admit that the current system(s) of education are not working but I would argue that there is strategic value for the government to attempt to make sure that a quality education is available to all.

Health Care
I'm not nearly as sure about this one but it is something I have begun to consider. Health Care in America is broken: it's expensive for those that have it and too many people have little or no coverage. Is the cost and availability of health care having a negative impact on American companies' ability to compete with foreign competition? Is there strategic value (for reasons similar to why education is important) in attempting to make sure that minimal health care is available to all citizens? I don't think the program being pushed by the more liberal members of Congress is the answer but I'm pretty sure that sticking with what we have now isn't the answer either.

Thoughts?

I agree completely with you assessment on the need for quality education and health care...and this is where I feel the free market can and will shine if allowed to operate properly.

Business (and thus jobs) will be attracted to areas with good education and health care. It's already been proven. Look at a state like Massachusetts, which for years was known as "Taxachusetts". It still attracted jobs, and mostly high tech jobs, because there was a focus on good education. Conversely, a state like Mississippi which was constantly last or near to last in spending on education suffered when it came to attracting good jobs.

If the federal government got out of the education business...and lowered the federal tax burden, states could raise taxes for education and thus compete...some areas might focus on high tech education (and thus must improve primary education to develop the "pool", while others might focus on ag or industry...what the local economy needs. A state that chooses to not fund education will suffer the job loss and "brain drain" that comes with keeping taxes down and not funding education. BUT IT'S THEIR CHOICE!!!

Pretty much the same goes for health care...if a state picks taxes for health care over low taxes and no health care...it will suffer the loses...the state that picks health care will benefit, and thus the higher taxes will be acceptable...

Now, all of this is contingent on the federal government getting out of these fields and reducing the federal tax burden associated with these items...which would then allow the states to make their choices...

Now, who believes the federal government will lower taxes...I don't with the current Democratic leadership, because that is how they distribute power... $$$$$$$$$

MarkCCU wrote:Do you really want the government to control your Health care?

They control health care for the members of the three branches, military, V.A., USPS, Medicare, etc. Don't see those folks pushing the rest of us out of the way to get at the great care through our private insurance coverages.

Wedgebuster wrote:

MarkCCU wrote:Do you really want the government to control your Health care?

They control health care for the members of the three branches, military, V.A., USPS, Medicare, etc. Don't see those folks pushing the rest of us out of the way to get at the great care through our private insurance coverages.

That's because health care is part of their compensation. I know a number of military folks who pay out of their own pockets to get health care outside the military system. Most military folks don't/can't make that financial decision...so I don't think your comparison is completely sound...

Col Hogan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
They control health care for the members of the three branches, military, V.A., USPS, Medicare, etc. Don't see those folks pushing the rest of us out of the way to get at the great care through our private insurance coverages.

That's because health care is part of their compensation. I know a number of military folks who pay out of their own pockets to get health care outside the military system. Most military folks don't/can't make that financial decision...so I don't think your comparison is completely sound...

Col Hogan wrote:I agree completely with you assessment on the need for quality education and health care...and this is where I feel the free market can and will shine if allowed to operate properly.

Business (and thus jobs) will be attracted to areas with good education and health care. It's already been proven. Look at a state like Massachusetts, which for years was known as "Taxachusetts". It still attracted jobs, and mostly high tech jobs, because there was a focus on good education. Conversely, a state like Mississippi which was constantly last or near to last in spending on education suffered when it came to attracting good jobs.

If the federal government got out of the education business...and lowered the federal tax burden, states could raise taxes for education and thus compete...some areas might focus on high tech education (and thus must improve primary education to develop the "pool", while others might focus on ag or industry...what the local economy needs. A state that chooses to not fund education will suffer the job loss and "brain drain" that comes with keeping taxes down and not funding education. BUT IT'S THEIR CHOICE!!!

Pretty much the same goes for health care...if a state picks taxes for health care over low taxes and no health care...it will suffer the loses...the state that picks health care will benefit, and thus the higher taxes will be acceptable...

Now, all of this is contingent on the federal government getting out of these fields and reducing the federal tax burden associated with these items...which would then allow the states to make their choices...

Now, who believes the federal government will lower taxes...I don't with the current Democratic leadership, because that is how they distribute power... $$$$$$$$$

See, now your just speaking crazytalk Col.....obviously, we need mandated, one-size-fits-all approach to healthcare and education because we are a homogenous society with very little diversity here in Finland....oh wait, my bad....

Looking at getting re licensed for the life and health game, I might have to rethink this move to destroy capitalism within the health industry because this just looks too good to be true.

With the basket of goodies I have to work with, there will be tons of money in this for me. They pay up to 25% commission for new business, 5% in the second year, 4 in the third, so on and so forth. The premiums go up as much as 35% in a year's time, and when the client can't take anymore, you just re-write them in another company which low balls them the first year ( and riders out and up rates any preexisting conditions) and I get ANOTHER new business commission, and the cycle starts all over. Looks like I got enough companies that I could keep the cycle going for a family or group for say 10 or 12 years before we have to get back to a same company!!!!

No way there was this much dough in health insurance the last time I was licensed or I really would be retired by now.

Franks Tanks wrote:

catamount man wrote:http://www.amsa.org/uhc/CaseForUHC.pdf

I know a woman here in South Carolina who was misdiagnosed as having MS, only after years of being on double digit meds to "combat" the MS. Once she was told of the mistake, a physician put her on more medication. To date, she takes TWENTY THREE meds a day, has no disability benefits coming in and her husband's hours have been cut (works in automotive industry) making them behind on their mortgage and car payments. And some think we DON'T need a public plan to help the less fortunate?!

I will continue to pay my $60.00 for my 90 day supply of blood pressure meds because I can afford, but there are some who just can't and NEED OUR HELP. Funny though, my last insurance plan cost for Diovan was $35.00 but it still doesn't hurt me.

Today, July 7, 2009, I 100% support President Obama's plans for universal health care.

But the woman already has private health insurance (sounds like that anyway) so how excatly does this example support your arguement that universal healthcare is needed? Your example supports the conclusion that many doctors are idiots and prescribe way too many meds. If she got off the meds she may function better. Also it sure sounds like she would qualify for disability benefits, and perhaps she should hire an attorney. There are already safety net in place to help people in this situation such as disability and partial unemploymemt.

From what I can gather, the insurance plan that her husband's employer provides does not cut it as it pertains to her needs. She has been fighting to get her disability started and her physician, the same idiot prescribing these meds, has told, again to my knowledge, the powers to be that she cannot physically work. I know of a lot of people who have dealt with the disability board trying to get their benefits started, some it has taken years and there's no excuse for that. I am just saying that in more than enough cases, a public option health plan is necessary for a lot of people who for no fault of their own, have hit bad times. I make no apologies for feeling this way.

catamount man wrote:
From what I can gather, the insurance plan that her husband's employer provides does not cut it as it pertains to her needs. She has been fighting to get her disability started and her physician, the same idiot prescribing these meds, has told, again to my knowledge, the powers to be that she cannot physically work. I know of a lot of people who have dealt with the disability board trying to get their benefits started, some it has taken years and there's no excuse for that. I am just saying that in more than enough cases, a public option health plan is necessary for a lot of people who for no fault of their own, have hit bad times. I make no apologies for feeling this way.

Who's in control of the disability board and the benefits that she should be receiving?

Ursus A. Horribilis wrote:

catamount man wrote:
From what I can gather, the insurance plan that her husband's employer provides does not cut it as it pertains to her needs. She has been fighting to get her disability started and her physician, the same idiot prescribing these meds, has told, again to my knowledge, the powers to be that she cannot physically work. I know of a lot of people who have dealt with the disability board trying to get their benefits started, some it has taken years and there's no excuse for that. I am just saying that in more than enough cases, a public option health plan is necessary for a lot of people who for no fault of their own, have hit bad times. I make no apologies for feeling this way.

Who's in control of the disability board and the benefits that she should be receiving?

Uh oh...

catamount man wrote:

Franks Tanks wrote:
But the woman already has private health insurance (sounds like that anyway) so how excatly does this example support your arguement that universal healthcare is needed? Your example supports the conclusion that many doctors are idiots and prescribe way too many meds. If she got off the meds she may function better. Also it sure sounds like she would qualify for disability benefits, and perhaps she should hire an attorney. There are already safety net in place to help people in this situation such as disability and partial unemploymemt.

From what I can gather, the insurance plan that her husband's employer provides does not cut it as it pertains to her needs. She has been fighting to get her disability started and her physician, the same idiot prescribing these meds, has told, again to my knowledge, the powers to be that she cannot physically work. I know of a lot of people who have dealt with the disability board trying to get their benefits started, some it has taken years and there's no excuse for that. I am just saying that in more than enough cases, a public option health plan is necessary for a lot of people who for no fault of their own, have hit bad times. I make no apologies for feeling this way.

We all know people who have been screwed by the system. You want to help people who can't afford health care, start a non-profit charity. It's not my responsibility to pay for her health care.

The government has no right to force me to pay for someone else's health care, health care is not an inalienable right.

Do you really think the government can make this work efficiently, and without raising taxes?

ASUMountaineer wrote:

catamount man wrote:
From what I can gather, the insurance plan that her husband's employer provides does not cut it as it pertains to her needs. She has been fighting to get her disability started and her physician, the same idiot prescribing these meds, has told, again to my knowledge, the powers to be that she cannot physically work. I know of a lot of people who have dealt with the disability board trying to get their benefits started, some it has taken years and there's no excuse for that. I am just saying that in more than enough cases, a public option health plan is necessary for a lot of people who for no fault of their own, have hit bad times. I make no apologies for feeling this way.

We all know people who have been screwed by the system. You want to help people who can't afford health care, start a non-profit charity. It's not my responsibility to pay for her health care.

The government has no right to force me to pay for someone else's health care, health care is not an inalienable right.

Do you really think the government can make this work efficiently, and without raising taxes?

I think Americans should have the option for either a public or private plan and no, taxes would have to be raised, but at a minimal rate over a lengthy period of time. Taxes, like war, are a necessary evil. How many of us are paying school taxes yet not sitting in a public school classroom? We have property, gas, so many other taxes. It's how we raise revenue to provide services. I have no problem with that if it will help someone less fortunate than myself out. You've met me, I haven't been without have I?

Just look at things in an entirely different light these days. It's not about me. We are called to the greater good of ourselves with those around us. Peace.

Why should people get help they need if they can't afford it? Maybe they should have been smarter, gone to college and gotten better jobs. And screw those that work hard but lose all their money to medical bills and such.

But fuck those who cheat the system.

ASUMountaineer wrote:
We all know people who have been screwed by the system. You want to help people who can't afford health care, start a non-profit charity. It's not my responsibility to pay for her health care.

The government has no right to force me to pay for someone else's health care, health care is not an inalienable right.

Do you really think the government can make this work efficiently, and without raising taxes?

I was going to comment on this until I read yours. You have said it all. Kudos!

slycat wrote:Why should people get help they need if they can't afford it? Maybe they should have been smarter, gone to college and gotten better jobs. And screw those that work hard but lose all their money to medical bills and such.

But **** those who cheat the system.

Not everybody is afforded the same opportunities as another person for a whole myriad of reasons.

catamount man wrote:

slycat wrote:Why should people get help they need if they can't afford it? Maybe they should have been smarter, gone to college and gotten better jobs. And screw those that work hard but lose all their money to medical bills and such.

But **** those who cheat the system.

Not everybody is afforded the same opportunities as another person for a whole myriad of reasons.

Life isn't fair...

ASUMountaineer wrote:health care is not an inalienable right.

That's where we disagree.