Hugh_Hoy Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hey BKT...i asked some questions; you didn't answer even ONE. (Does that mean you don't have any answers?) And yes, if a person is legally in the U.S. and pays into SS, benefits should be accrued. Howver, if you are ILLEGALLY in the U.S. you can't legally get a SS number. For a guy who whines about the U.S. assisting with heathcare in Iraq, you sure don't have any problems (seemingly) advocating giving it to wetbacks in your own back yard. HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Hey BKT...i asked some questions; you didn't answer even ONE. (Does that mean you don't have any answers?) And yes, if a person is legally in the U.S. and pays into SS, benefits should be accrued. [color:red]Howver, if you are ILLEGALLY in the U.S. you can't legally get a SS number.[/color] [color:red]For a guy who whines about the U.S. assisting with heathcare in Iraq, you sure don't have any problems (seemingly) advocating giving it to wetbacks in your own back yard.[/color] HH If an illegal can't get a Social Security number, then why are you worried about them collecting Social Security? As far as giving healthcare to wetbacks: if they show up at the emergency room - they get treated like everybody else does. As for them getting medicaid, that is a big NO and you should know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 Making the illegals legal so they pay taxes has been proven to be a failure in that the taxes they pay on the crap jobs they tend to get, usually do not cover the services they use/suck up. Illegals can be dealt with, but we do not want to do what is necessary and take the drastic steps it would take to rpotect our country from them. Forget the guys who take the fruit picker jobs, or the day laborers for a second, and lets deal with the nasty bastards who are a criminal element, and are destroying the country...do you by chance live near that guy who was just murdered by illegals running drugs? Lets give him some health care! Fuck these people, legitimize 12-20 million and 12-20 million more will come. The amnesty was a failure in this regard (was that Carter or Reagan?) and this will be a bigger failure as well...20 million more uneducated low ambitioned people who will demand we teach their kids in Spanish, earn low wages, pay little or no taxes, and suck up all the services they now suck up the difference being they are now legal...sorry this doesn't wash with me. Make the effort to round them up, punish those who hire them, take all the earnings of the illegals, and those who employ them, send them back, mine the borders heavily patrol them with the army, and use sysmec equipment to check for tunnels, and maybe at a certain point in time start locking up those who do get through on prison chain gangs...for like 30 years...These people are not all innocent guys looking for jobs, and I am sick of them trashing the cities and neighborhoods. Legal immigration hell fucking yes, illegal hell fucking no! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsmedave Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 HH...thanks for making a point which can be argued with...but let me make sure I understand...is youur cheif problem with the future of the quality of health care a lack of family doctors...or a fear/hatred of foreigners getting healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsmedave Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 So, let me take a crack at both problems. First, as for the foreigners issue...this seems more like a immigration law debate and has nothing to do with the healthcare debate...so I will leave it alone. But, so you know, when we start talking about immigration, HH, my views may be closer to yours than you think. As for the wait times to see a doctor with the new health care law... Estimates have it that this new law could mean insurance for around 30 million more people. There are around 300 million total people in the U.S....so we are talking an increase of less than 10% of patients for family doctors. Thus, it would be fair to expect a 10% longer wait time to see your doctor...although the law also has provisions for the creation of new community health centers to help shoulder the load. But yes, it will be a bit of an imposition. So let's see the tradeoff. If you now wait for 10 days to get an appointment...it will become an 11 day wait instead. On the other hand, it is estimated that 20% of emergency room patients are uninsured...so the next time you go to the ER with an actual emergency, you might get to a doctor in an hour and a half instead of 2 hours. But more importantly, your extra day of waiting for the regulsr appt, will save tens of thousands of lives of people who are dying now because they have no insurance. So, go ahead and start arguing that your one day of waiting is worth more than thousands of lives...but it won't look good on you. BTW, thanks for calling me noble, I just always thought that looking for the upside and helping my fellow man was what being an American was all about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 [color:red]Making the illegals legal so they pay taxes has been proven to be a failure in that the taxes they pay on the crap jobs they tend to get, usually do not cover the services they use/suck up. [/color] Illegals can be dealt with, but we do not want to do what is necessary and take the drastic steps it would take to rpotect our country from them. Forget the guys who take the fruit picker jobs, or the day laborers for a second, and lets deal with the nasty bastards who are a criminal element, and are destroying the country...[color:red]do you by chance live near that guy who was just murdered by illegals running drugs?[/color] Lets give him some health care! Fuck these people, legitimize 12-20 million and 12-20 million more will come. The amnesty was a failure in this regard (was that Carter or Reagan?) and this will be a bigger failure as well...20 million more uneducated low ambitioned people who will demand we teach their kids in Spanish, earn low wages, pay little or no taxes, and suck up all the services they now suck up the difference being they are now legal...sorry this doesn't wash with me. Make the effort to round them up, punish those who hire them, take all the earnings of the illegals, and those who employ them, send them back, mine the borders heavily patrol them with the army, and use sysmec equipment to check for tunnels, and maybe at a certain point in time start locking up those who do get through on prison chain gangs...for like 30 years...These people are not all innocent guys looking for jobs, and I am sick of them trashing the cities and neighborhoods. Legal immigration hell fucking yes, illegal hell fucking no! My question regarding that rancher living near the border: How many border patrol agents were within one mile of his home when it happened? Probably none. How many were within one mile of my house? Probably over 1000. The border patrol forgot to do their job. Where was the border patrol. Some of them were 65 miles away from the border in a park checking the homeless people's ID! About half of the people illegal in our country became illegal from overstay. I don't think you will have much problems with those people [color:red]'sucking up'[/color] government funds. The illegals that come here to harvest crops so we can have cheap vegetables on our table, their main problem is being low paid people. They are hard workers but don't get paid much. They want to work 40 plus hours a day. If they become legal, they will get paid more per hour. The main fear is [color:red]"Will our vegetables, etc go up in price?"[/color] That is the main fear. As for the criminal element, make drugs legal just like tobacco and alchol are legal. If this was done, the crime rate will drop just like it did after prohibition eneded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted March 31, 2010 Report Share Posted March 31, 2010 So, let me take a crack at both problems. First, as for the foreigners issue...this seems more like a immigration law debate and has nothing to do with the healthcare debate...so I will leave it alone. But, so you know, when we start talking about immigration, HH, my views may be closer to yours than you think. [color:red]As for the wait times to see a doctor with the new health care law...[/color]Estimates have it that this new law could mean insurance for around 30 million more people. There are around 300 million total people in the U.S....so we are talking an increase of less than 10% of patients for family doctors. Thus, it would be fair to expect a 10% longer wait time to see your doctor...although the law also has provisions for the creation of new community health centers to help shoulder the load. But yes, it will be a bit of an imposition. So let's see the tradeoff. [color:red]If you now wait for 10 days to get an appointment...it will become an 11 day wait instead. On the other hand, it is estimated that 20% of emergency room patients are uninsured...[/color]so the next time you go to the ER with an actual emergency, you might get to a doctor in an hour and a half instead of 2 hours. But more importantly, your extra day of waiting for the regulsr appt, will save tens of thousands of lives of people who are dying now because they have no insurance. So, go ahead and start arguing that your one day of waiting is worth more than thousands of lives...but it won't look good on you. BTW, thanks for calling me noble, I just always thought that looking for the upside and helping my fellow man was what being an American was all about. People today go to the doctors and/or Emergency Room without health insurance. The problem today before this health care reform is not will more people be going to the doctor or hospital, [color:red]but will they pay.[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted April 1, 2010 Report Share Posted April 1, 2010 Health Care Reform: What It Means for Retirees http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retirement/article/109215/health-care-reform-what-it-means-for-retirees?mod=fidelity-livingretirement Medicare...Starting in 2011, drug companies will be required to provide a 50% discount on brand-name drugs bought in the coverage gap... Drug companies FORCED (required) to give a 50% discount...private companies now CONTROLLED by the US gov? constitutional? freedom of commerce? New taxes...raise the Medicare payroll tax by an additional 0.9%...income above $200,000 for individuals...Self-employed people will have to pay the additional tax. No surprise here! get ready to pay and pay and pay!!! Medical tax deductions: Beginning in the 2013 tax year, the threshold for the itemized medical deduction rises to 10% of AGI, from the current 7.5%. Individuals age 65 and older, and their spouses, would be exempt for the tax years 2013 through 2016. No surprise here! get ready to pay and pay and pay!!! Early retirees and self-employed...Starting in 2014, insurers must accept all applicants, including anyone with preexisting medical conditions....Cost sharing will be capped at $5,950 for individuals and $11,900 for families. This could be especially helpful to early retirees in Arizona and Nevada, which do not have state high-risk pools. It could also help Floridians, because Florida's is not open to new enrollees. Four years for the insurance companies to jack up the rates, like they did to me! Exchanges and coverage subsidies. Nearly everyone would be required to buy coverage, or pay a penalty. Early retirees, the self-employed and others without insurance would be able to purchase coverage through state-based exchanges. Tax credits would be available to individuals and families with income between 133% and 400% of the poverty level (that's $19,378 to $58,280 for a couple). Private insurance companies could sell policies through the exchanges. Buyers would choose among four benefit categories. Retiree health plans. If you are 55 or older and receive retiree health benefits from your employer, you could benefit from a government reinsurance program. The program will reimburse employers or insurers for 80% of retiree claims between $15,000 and $90,000. Payments from the reinsurance program will be used to lower the costs for enrollees in the employer plan. The program will end on January 1, 2014. It will not reimburse costs for retirees who are eligible for Medicare. Long-term care. In 2011, workers can enroll in a national insurance program to cover non-medical services in case of disability. After a five-year vesting period, the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports program will provide individuals who become disabled with a benefit of about $50 a day. The program will be financed with voluntary payroll deductions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 Hopefully, Congress will abolish the laws which restrict doctors and dentists from practicing in the U.S. If they can pass a stringent series of tests which would prove that they are at (or above) the level of knowledge and performance of doctors and dentists that have U.S. degrees, I'm all in favor of letting them in. Doctors and dentists in the U.S. are the highest paid in the world and anything to bring their salaries down would be positive. I also support allowing insurance companies to pay for cheaper medical treatment abroad, assuming that U.S. medical standards are observed. Not to worry because it would take an extreme situation to get this passed over the long arm of the AMA. You hit on the head about the AMA. The government doesn't decide who becomes a doctor. The AMA does and they arbitrarily restrict the amount of doctors. The med schools arbitrarily restrict who can become a doctor as well. I've read where its easier to beocme a doctor in Europe (of course each euro country has different standards but generally speaking). The doctors in europe are as good and in a lot of cases better than American doctors). Their salaries are lower than the U.S. and that is what the AMA is fighting against. The AMA is not for the patient. The AMA is for doctors. The average American is fed some BS about the best medical care in the world, our high standards, etc. Fact is there are plenty of people who are more than capable of becoming competant doctors that are denied entry into med school because of the arbitrary and quota system of only having so many doctors in the country. What people don't realize is that its a private organization that decides who can become a doctor. Doctors are well paid. Doctors in countries with national healthcare are well paid. That is a subjective statement though since what is 'well paid'? If its well above the average wage...and I mean very well above then doctors are well paid around the globe. The AMA will have us believe that if we lower the standards and/or let in doctors who were educated in Europe or elsewhere that it will somehow lower the standard of care. Complete BS. A lot of us have seen the medical care in other countries and in countries deemed 3rd world and we've gotten excellent care and sometimes better than we'd have gotten back home. The AMA has been against most progressive positons to make medical care better, more affordable, etc. for the average american. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association Also... Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. In Free to Choose, Friedman said "The AMA has engaged in extensive litigation charging chiropractors and osteopathic physicians with the unlicensed practice of medicine, in an attempt to restrict them to as narrow an area as possible."[citation needed] Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book They were originally against Medicare and HMOs. A lot of Americans are waking up to this big lie. Medical tourism is growing. The reasons are obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted April 2, 2010 Report Share Posted April 2, 2010 A possible solution. I am not saying to end the AMA. They have a right to exist and do some good. However, I would not allow them to have a monopoly on whom can be a doctor. Harvard, Yale and Stanford are private institutions and can have whatever entry requirements they deem appropriate. However, the government (specifically the state governments) controll the state universities. The Universty of Texas, Michigan, UCLA and a host of other fine medical schools are government owned. The numerous city, county and state hospitals that are government run as well. Although I'm usually against the intrusion of government, I would not be opposed to the government having its own entry requirements and not be as restrictive as the AMA and have a government license to practice medicine. Private hospitals may refuse those doctors but the government hospitals would have to accept them. Furthermore, the government can address the lack of doctors in poor areas from West Virginia to West Philadelphia by forgiving all or part of the loans for tuition if they serve those areas. The amount of years spent in these areas would decide how much of the loans are forgiven. The same would apply to nurses, dentists and other practitioners of medicine as there is a shortage as well. The military create great engineers via the army corp of engineers. There are also great medical technicians as well. Why can't the military also produce great doctors? Why can't a person serve in the military and get into a medical school after service and have a GI Bill for it as they would for any other discipline? These doctors can not only serve in the various VA hospitals but also for the general public as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.