Official: Romney a moron

[Dave4468]

Everyone in the US has healthcare access and there are laws on the books that keep hospitals from turning people away if they show up in the Emergency Room.  That is one of the big misconceptions about the entire healthcare debate in America--healthcare versus health insurance coverage.  Everyone has the former, but not everyone has the latter.

Lets be honest though, in the US people can and do not get treatments, medicine whatever because at the end of the day they either don't have money or couldn't afford health insurance.

Doesn't happen in the UK. And most of the developed world. And even a selection of developing countries. But not the self appointed "Best Country in the World"

[LemonButt]

Lets be honest though, in the US people can and do not get treatments, medicine whatever because at the end of the day they either don't have money or couldn't afford health insurance.

Doesn't happen in the UK. And most of the developed world. And even a selection of developing countries. But not the self appointed "Best Country in the World"

True.  I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  I was responsible and took care of myself.  When I left my job I got a catasrophic health insurance policy on the private market for $65/month.  Catastrophic meaning that it had high deductibles only paid 80% of my expenses over a certain threshold and I was required to pay 20%.  My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over $13,000 and I ended up paying about $4000 out of pocket thanks to having insurance.  I also paid the $4000 off over a period of several months--hospitals usually don't care when you pay as long as you are making monthly payments.  It is funny how people will spend $100/month for mobile phone service, but object to paying $100/month for a basic health insurance policy that anyone can get on the open market without pre-existing conditions.

[Dave4468]

See, you say that like its OK and an excuse. If you were in the UK the post would have gone as follows.

"I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  It got done on the NHS for free. My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over £8,000 and I ended up paying about £0 thanks to the NHS"

How is that not a better solution? Please, how? How is paying $4000 thanks to insurance better than paying $0 thanks to social healthcare? HOW?!?

[JumboShrimp]

Who will pay? Well in a civilised nation with social healthcare schemes, the state. Yes that does mean taking taxes but honestly, I'd rather have access to healthcare than a nicer car or bigger house.

The Obama health care scheme, majority of people who will get either free or subsidised health care basically pay nothing.  There is no new direct tax on beneficieries, but there is a promise of a benefit.

Very different from European countries or Canada, where there is a direct tax, and direct benefit.  If it sounds bananas, it is.  The same thing for the whole US as a country.  we a banana republic - with no bananas.

[exchlbg]

There´s no tax for health care, it´s run by semi-official and private insurance companies.
Basicly every employee up to a certain income must be insured, fees go part employee, part employer.
If you are unemployed, you keep being insured, employment agency is paying fee.
That´s how it works in Germany.

[JumboShrimp]

There´s no tax for health care, it´s run by semi-official and private insurance companies.
Basicly every employee up to a certain income must be insured, fees go part employee, part employer.
If you are unemployed, you keep being insured, employment agency is paying fee.
That´s how it works in Germany.

I am familiar with how it works in many European countries.  It is a payroll tax, basically.  I think in Canada, it is sort of a sales tax / value added tax.  So in general, most of the people pay the tax, and then they get a benefit.

Under Obamacare, there are some some new taxes on people who will not be getting any benefits.  Then there is a series of penalties on individuals (for not buying insurance for themselves) and businesses (for not providing adequate insurance to their employees).

Basically, a totally moronic system.

[LemonButt]

See, you say that like its OK and an excuse. If you were in the UK the post would have gone as follows.

"I was once between jobs and had to have an emergency cholecystectomy (gall bladder removed) and didn't have employer sponsored health insurance.  But guess what?  It got done on the NHS for free. My bill for the surgery and hospital stay was over £8,000 and I ended up paying about £0 thanks to the NHS"

How is that not a better solution? Please, how? How is paying $4000 thanks to insurance better than paying $0 thanks to social healthcare? HOW?!?

It's not a better solution because it's not free!  I'll give you my right kidney if you can name a single government program that is better run and more efficient than its private sector counterpart.  Even the US Postal Service, which has a legal monopoly, can't stay competitive with FedEx and UPS and is currently bleeding billions of dollars each year.  If government run healthcare that ensures everyone has "free" healthcare works so well, why don't we have government run grocery stores that ensures everyone has "free" food--we could solve world hunger overnight.

In regards to Obamacare, I actually spoke with our Controller today--my partner at work just had a hip replacement.  We are self insured and he said the lawyers have told them not to do anything with the insurance plan because they don't know how Obamacare will impact coverage and if they change anything they currently have, they could risk not being grandfathered in with exceptions.

The funny thing about Obamacare is if it is so good for the country, why did Obama approve over 1400 waivers exempting large groups of people from many of the provisions--over half of which are unions?  It truly is a monstrosity of a law.  But then again as I mentioned, I'm better off than most people so I'm not going to feel the pain nearly as bad as the "little guy" this law is supposed to help.

[d2031k]

Is that the all white one? 

I can't believe there was no reaction to this!  Very amusing.

[swiftus27]

I can't believe there was no reaction to this!  Very amusing.

Me neither... Totally threw a bone there too.  More of a reference to the nastier comment above

[[ATA] - lilius]

Me neither... Totally threw a bone there too.  More of a reference to the nastier comment above

Even when you are serious you throw better bones in this thread.

[mean123]

As the United Kingdom made new and very strict gun laws end of the 90s the crime rate increased massively.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm


Maybe weapons don't make a country more safe, but they also don't make it less safe. And you and me have no right to make up "facts" on other people's cultures and laws.



Katrina and Elbflooding is still useless to compare. Much more water, direct oceanic access and more people involved. Including the back country damaged and flooded, while the biggest German city that was affected for a small amount (Dresden) still had the functional and good infrastructure.



You are wrong in at least two huge points. Time to show balls and accept it.

Thats Ridiculous, The crime rate involving guns went up because people just carried on as if the law did not change, but people were being caught still owning guns and using them to hunt without a licence.

Now this is being strictly enforced by authorities, gun crime has gone down. And is rare.

In The United Kingdom there are 0.22 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants;
and for Germany 0.2 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants;
And for the US: for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0.

GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL!! Simple as that! Humans should not be allowed to own such weapons unless their profession requires them such as hunters. (Sorry to the vegetarians).

[brique]

Its an odd fact that if you make laws that create new offences : you get an increase in 'crime'. Its more sins of omission : when certain categories of firearm became illegal to own, many did nothing and then got caught in possession. so, a large part of the increase in offences was not 'criminal' per se, more a failure to conform to the new conditions. They did run amnesties and such but some folk just ignore stuff they dont like much or expect : When a series of roads in North London were changed to a new one-way system, people kept driving up and down them as they had always done for weeks afterwards, from sheer habit. Guess what? yes, a massive increase in traffic offences detected occurred!

Besides, the main thrust of the changes in gun laws in the UK was in response to a serious increase in criminal fire-arms use by street gangs, so the poster has the chronology back to front somewhat.

Where that increase in criminal fire-arm use was and still is occurring is amongst those youth street gangs, and its largely due to that culture which recognises gun ownership and display as a status issue, the use of firearms in 'revenge' attacks which prove 'manhood' and provide 'respect' which then provide ranking within the gang. Thus, its no surprise that the majority of their victims are gang members themselves. And yep, no prizes for guessing where the inspiration for these gangs and their philosophies originates.

[LemonButt]

GUNS ARE MADE TO KILL!! Simple as that! Humans should not be allowed to own such weapons unless their profession requires them such as hunters. (Sorry to the vegetarians).

I agree, guns are made to kill and maim.  But guns do not kill people--people kill people.  You cannot tell me that there weren't homocides before the invention of the gun.  People have been killing each since the beginning of humankind.  Removing guns doesn't remove motive, it only changes the means and most people have access to a kitchen knife.  The bottom line is there are people in society who are genetically disadvantaged when it comes to protecting themselves.  I am 6'3" and 220 pounds, for example.  I can deadlift 350 pounds and I am a pretty strong dude.  I could overpower 98% of the people I meet in the street and cause them harm if I wanted to.  I have no motive though, but let's assume I do whether it be a chemical imbalance etc.  How are people going to protect themselves from a strong man like me?  How are little old ladies, people in wheelchairs, and children with their parents going to be protected?  Give them all a cell phone and hope the cops have good response time that day?  As I mentioned previously, a person can't be un-raped.  Guns are the great equalizer.  There is a saying in gun circles that God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.  A little old lady in a wheelchair with a gun is as powerful as the strongest man on Earth.  This is the reason why we have the right to bear arms and defend ourselves in the US and it is a part of our Bill of Rights as the second amendment--right after the first amendment granting freedom of speech/religion/press/etc.

[brique]

'the most dangerous component of a car is the nut behind the steering wheel'

So, why do we insist on driver training, licensing, etc, and surround the process of driving with regulations, rules and penalties for non-compliance up to and including withdrawal of licenses and prison. Why do we act to prevent drunks, drugged up wastrels and such from driving? why do we demand eye-sight tests, or insist certain health conditions debar the sufferer?

After all, the weakest wimp is as powerful as the strongest man when they are driving a 44-tonne rig, and trucks dont kill people, people kill people....