Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only
be deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured
to a government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided
they are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in
arrears with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then
hike taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it.
Government care will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive
stuff. It may be rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched
implants or sex changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care,
it cannot be skimed or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?


Right now it's free for those who can't pay - including illegal aliens.
Hospitals aren't refusing life-saving treatment.

"Larry" wrote in message
news
nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:

Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only
be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in
arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government
care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be
skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't
know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the
streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?


Right now it's free for those who can't pay - including illegal aliens.
Hospitals aren't refusing life-saving treatment.


You're looney. Please tell us what penile implants and sex change operations
for illegal aliens have to do with life-saving treatment.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On 16/04/2010 10:07 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?

Nope, just citing that some people have been known to get a $5K plastic
surgery, it goes wrong and they need $100K of publically funded health
care to fix it. Stupid abuse really.

Nope, keeping my parts and adding nothing. But it is clear you are
beyond hope, no medical cure for you exists at any price.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 10:07 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only
be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in
arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government
care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be
skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't
know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the
streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?

Nope, just citing that some people have been known to get a $5K plastic
surgery, it goes wrong and they need $100K of publically funded health
care to fix it. Stupid abuse really.

Nope, keeping my parts and adding nothing. But it is clear you are beyond
hope, no medical cure for you exists at any price.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the
government?


"Some people" right. From Mars maybe. Do you have parts to keep? I doubt it.
Certainly no brain to speak of.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Apr 16, 1:50*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
Here's my question. *We all know that the present system can't go on
working. *We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. *That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. *Hey, you
could be starving. *Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? *If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, *no tickey, no laundry. *You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. *I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 1:50 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.


It's worse than that... those who "get treatment somewhere" and can't pay,
tend to be much more expensive to treat at that point. We have to get them
into the system. I can't think of any other options... we already have a
modified #2 (caveat previously noted), so I vote for #1.

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Apr 16, 3:48*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

Frankly I think we could save a whole lot from the administrative
costs and returning insurance back to the non-profit state. Right now
we have two layers of profit and two layers of administrative costs
coming out of every health care dollar.