| 0 |
Subject: These Republicans have gone BANANAS!
Posted by: sarge33rd
- [22523010] Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 17:36
AZ coinsiders $50 fine for smokers, obese and diabetics
Have they gone completely nuts? Are they gonna start fining people with cancer? High blood pressure, the flu? |
| 1 | weykool
ID: 138481617
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 18:20
|
Sarge....dont start getting rediculous on us.
Smoking, obesity and diabetics who dont follow doctor's orders are things the patients can control.
The things you listed are not things a patient can typically control.
How is this any different than insurance companies offering discounts to non-smokers and people who are not overweight?
In effect smokers and obese people have been and should be paying more for healthcare.
Now if your argument is the government should get out of healthcare all together....then I would have to agree with you 100%.
|
| 2 | Tree on the Evo
ID: 28045819
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 18:31
|
How is this any different than insurance companies offering discounts to non-smokers and people who are not overweight?
Ummmm, one is punitive, the other is not?
|
| 3 | sarge33rd
ID: 22523010
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 18:39
|
WK....I thought you "conservatives", wanted smaller, less intrusive govt?
How do you reconcile telling folks what they can/cant do in their bedrooms, what nedical procedures thay can/cant undertake, who they can/cant wed, how much they can/cant weigh...with being less intrusive?
How do you reconcile this, with the myriad of derogatory comments made by Palin/Limbaugh etc; re Michelle Obamas campaign to fight child obesity?
Wouold you just be honest, please....and ADMIT, that what you want is to DICTATE (as in a fascist form of govt), what the citizenry is and isnt allowed to do.
|
| 4 | Tosh
Leader
ID: 057721710
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 18:42
|
I wonder what Arizona does with the $2.00/tax per pack (12th highest in the country) they already charge for cigarettes?
|
| 5 | weykool
ID: 138481617
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 19:00
|
Sarge:
Your lack of understanding what conservatives stand for is truly astounding.
I want the government out of healthcare altogether.
There is a huge difference between telling someone what they can and cant do and telling them they are free to do what they want but might have to pay more for the consequences of their choices.
If you want to smoke...fine....just be prepared to pay higher healthcare costs.
If you want to be obese.....fine...just be prepared to pay higher healthcare costs.
Its a shame liberals dont understand that people need to be responsible and pay the price for the choices they make.
You want people to do what they want and then have everyone else pay for those choices.
I wonder what Arizona does with the $2.00/tax per pack (12th highest in the country) they already charge for cigarettes?
Like all taxes the money has been spent several times over.
All these "special taxes" are just a scam so the government can collect more money and then spend it 2-3 times over and never use it for the purposes intended.
|
| 6 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 19:12
|
I can understand the fine for smoking. But obesity and diabetics? There is no way to tell if that is genetically based or behavior based or caused by some other condition. Good luck getting that bill enforced.
|
| 7 | boikin
ID: 532592112
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 19:18
|
I can understand the fine for smoking. But obesity and diabetics?
the fine is only if your doctor tells you to stop smoking or to stick to certain diet. I am not sure where diabetic came from.
|
| 8 | weykool
ID: 138481617
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 19:33
|
In his rush to demonize conservatives Sarge slanted the facts a tad.
From the article:
One part of the proposal affects people with diabetes. Coury says diabetics who fail to follow their doctor's orders to lose weight would be subjected to the $50 charge.
|
| 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 19:56
|
I thought it might be some April Fools joke.
|
| 10 | sarge33rd
ID: 22523010
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 21:18
|
WK...this is governmental intrusion at its absolute, totalitarian WORST.
And that you defend it, defies logic.
|
| 11 | Pancho Villa
ID: 597172916
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 21:40
|
the fine is only if your doctor tells you to stop smoking
Wonder how many doctors advise their patients to continue smoking.
|
| 12 | weykool
ID: 235122
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 23:05
|
Sarge I dont defend government healthcare.
I already said I agree with you that the government needs to get out of it.
Are we in agreement that Obamacare needs to be repealed?
This is the slippery slope we now find ourselves in....once the government gets their nose into the healthcare tent then we are going to be faced with the government telling us what we can and cant do.
The totalitarianism is clearly coming from the left.
Mark my words if we dont repeal this terrible government intrusion it wont be long until the government files suit against fast food chains for making food taste too good and being the cause of obesity.
Turn from the dark side and join me and let your voice be heard in opposition to the unprecedented government intrusion into our lives.
|
| 13 | biliruben
ID: 358252515
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 23:13
|
Cozy up by the fire some time and I'll spin you a yarn about these fantastical things called "Medicare and Medicaid."
Once upon a time, government thought it was a good idea to make provision for those who were unable to provide access to healthcare themselves, and it was one of the most popular government programs ever conceived.
Sounds like something right out of the Brothers Grimm, I know.
|
| 14 | sarge33rd
ID: 22523010
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 23:55
|
WK...providing basic medical treatment, is so far from totalitarian that it absolutely can not be called such. DENYING such basic treatment however, is the very tool of a despot. Allowing it ONLY to a selecvt segment based on that segments financials, is utterly against our very way of life. the right in this nation, has completely lost its collective mind.
|
| 15 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Fri, Apr 01, 2011, 23:56
|
It is government which approves (or disapproves) of all medications in the United States. Who license people to practice medicine. Who pay billions of dollars to cover their own employees every year. They couldn't get out of health care if they wanted to.
What Obama did, however, is take a Republican idea and apply it, over the objections and lies of Republicans, to a United States in which insurance companies, by and large, determine life and death decisions based upon profitability. And this isn't putting too fine a point on it. We should never go back to a time in which insurance companies can price you out of the health insurance market because they don't want to cover you.
|
| 16 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 00:05
|
bili
Oh I know how this story ends!"But eventually we ran out of other people's money".
|
| 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 00:07
|
Yeah, that Prescription Drug plan that Bush trotted out without budgeting for it just about did us in. Luckily the Affordable Care Act helps close a few of those loopholes and will save the government billions.
|
| 18 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 04:55
|
I predict you will be the last person in America to admit Obamacare raised expenses rather than saved money.
|
| 19 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:11
|
Yes, right after the CBO.
So long as the accountants continue to point to long term government savings, I'll continue to believe them. They are, after all, the ones you believe to be gospel when the news appears to harm Democrats.
|
| 20 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 10:12
|
Reminds me of the Clinton Administration, where Republicans were dragged, kicking and screaming, into economic prosperity.
Those had to be horrible times to be working in America and to be a winger Republican.
|
| 21 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:02
|
You got another thing comin from the CBO, PD.
In order to cook the CBO's numbers the Dems 'put off' 98% of the program's spending until after 2014.
As the CBO's 'ten year window' includes more of those 'actual cost' years the CBO numbers will balloon.
There were many other ways they cooked the books, but that is the big one. They do have a secret weapon to offset that. Their death panels can nix all the costly treatments they feel like they can get away with politically.
|
| 22 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:04
|
And no, that was the first Republican majority congress in a lifetime dragging Clinton kicking and screaming into the era of big government being over.
Unfortunately they couldn't drag the Bush family there too.
|
| 23 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:12
|
#21: That's not, in fact, what the CBO says.
If all you have is "Just you wait and see!!" then you've got nothing.
Meanwhile, of course, the more people who get good healthcare, the more people will be working, paying taxes, etc. A healthier workforce is better for our country and our economy.
To say nothing of our souls.
|
| 24 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:20
|
We were taking care of everyone just fine until Dems decided they had to make every last victim of a doctor's innocent mistake a millionaire.
|
| 25 | DWetzel
ID: 31111810
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:27
|
lol
|
| 26 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 12:47
|
PD
First, the major 'savings' offsetting the new program's costs is cutting $700+ billion from medicare.
Does it not occur to anyone that if there was $700 billion in fat that could be cut from Medicare, that we could just reduce the national debt by $700 billion instead of creating a new entitlement?
It's a depression here after all.
Secondly when the time to actually make those cuts arrives Dems simply will not make them and demogogue any Republicans who try to hold them to their word. So you can bet the CBO's numbers are off by $700 billion right there.
|
| 27 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 13:15
|
BTW my pdf reader isn't working but everyone I trust who has read that CBO report says that it indicates repealing Obamacare would save 1.4 trillion in spending [and btw prevent 800 billion in Obamacare tax hikes]
|
| 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 17:43
|
#24: You really believe, despite all evidence, that malpractice awards are what keeps us from "taking care of everyone?" Really?
#27: Link, please. Because I suspect that you are, as usual, only looking at half the thing. Like saying we can save thousands by not replacing the leaking and falling roof.
|
| 29 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:19
|
1) My mother-in-law was treated by her doctor after her massive stroke and 9 mo hospitalization virtually for free back in the 60's.
Could a doctor dare do that today? Lawyers and their eat-the-rich job are the reason it changed.
2) Search it yourself.
|
| 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 19:51
|
For free, you say? You must mean: At virtually no cost to her.
Of course, 45 years ago the cost to have a doctor treat such a person was much less than the cost today.
|
| 31 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:01
|
Yeah, because today every pill maker, device maker, nurses aid, doctor and hospital today needs to worry about being sued into oblivion.
|
| 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:13
|
We've shown you the numbers but you don't believe them.
Most experts in the field believe that the reason health care costs have risen is the incredible cost of medical devices and tools. For example, an MRI machine (unheard of in the 1960s) cost between $1 million and $3 million dollars each.
Perhaps the reason your mother was able to get a free ride is because the hospital doesn't have to each a million dollars in outlays for her.
Nevertheless, to hope that everyone can get the same free ride is more than living in the past--it is living in a fantasy world.
|
| 33 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:18
|
I'll grant you some truth in that. On the otherhand I don't think every guy who comes in for a tooth cleaning needs to pay for an x-ray machine. Nor does basic hospice care require the expense of an MRI machine.
Some of these devices do cross into the territory of heroic measures and not everyone should be saddled with their cost.
|
| 34 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:21
|
#33: I've been trying to think about that very same point. The huge cost of these things make other costs go much higher than they should. If you think of how this might work I'd be interested in hashing this out a bit more.
|
| 35 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:33
|
I'd like to eliminate one 'solution'.
Let's take the egalitarian, 'If the poor can't afford an MRI machine, no one gets one' right off the table.
Obamacare is one size fits all and 'heroic measures' will be illegal.
|
| 36 | Khahan
ID: 54138190
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:45
|
Pinning it all on the cost of the equipment is just as naive as pinning it all on the cost of malpractice.
There are 3 major contributors to the cost of health care today:
1. malpractice - PD, you are in Pennyslvania. Surely you're aware of how bad the great system in south eastern PA was disrupted a few years back because of malpractice. The cost of professional insurance was alone enough to break some family physicians.
2. Cost of machines - highlighted above
3. Health care companies trying to make 1-size fits all statistics rule health care for their own profit rather than letting doctors make decisions. Initially health insurance companies made money off the system, working with doctors and good practices. Then they decided THEY were the system and the doctors and patients had to work off their profit systems rather than their profits working off the physicians systems.
And imho, #3 is the biggest problem. We don't need Obamacare. That doesn't solve ANY of the 3 problems. Rather it just shuffles costs around.
|
| 37 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:46
|
Since Obamacare merely funnels people into insurance programs, I doubt that that was even on the table in the first place.
Insurance is both the solution and the problem. As people get more away from the real cost of medicine, it gets very easy to order expensive tests and things that have little to do with the actual diagnosis (and yes, some of that is a CYA by a doctor). But nothing is free. Someone has to pay the $50,000/year salary for and MRI tech, for example.
This is why I was a big fan of drug co-pays, no matter how small. Drug plans which have no co-pays tend to be overused, for example--and with no real benefit.
|
| 38 | Boldwin
ID: 4635123
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 21:52
|
I doubt that that was even on the table in the first place
Seriously, you have no idea Obamacare locks doctors into prescribed treatments and makes practicing as they see fit prohibitively expensive or downright illegal?
|
| 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522
Sat, Apr 02, 2011, 22:05
|
No, insurance companies do.
Pretty much everything you believe that Obamacare does is already occurring, in worse ways, by insurance companies already.
|
| 40 | Mith
ID: 22141616
Sun, Apr 03, 2011, 00:42
|
Personally I could live with modest fines for people on Medicaid for unhealthy lifestyle results. Smokers and people with heart trouble or type-2 diabetes who put on weight sounds reasonable. Obviously some exemptions should be necessary for people who might be unable to meet the conditions to avoid fines, some of which could be exploitable. I just skimmed the article and some of the posts but it sounds like I'd support this if theyy scaled it back a little. To be honest I'm surprised the insurance industry hasn't tried to force the idea.
I also agree with and appreciate weykool's refreshing defense of the idea on the conservative principle of personal responsibility. I haven't seen much on this. Am I wrong to assume that most of the public discourse on the right is crying "nanny state"? Or does Brewer's status earn her a pass for imposing an unhealthy lifestyle tax on low income Americans - from the same rightist media that calls Michelle Obama a fascist for suggesting they eat a carrot?
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message:
|