You do know that Medicare covers the aged and most likely to be ill, don’t you? I am sure you know they can not refuse to cover people. I bet you also know they cover young people with catastrophic illnesses. I bet you are aware that they can not spread their costs across a spectrum of younger and healthier people. They only insure the most expensive demographics. They also can not drop people who are sick and costing them money. I bet you took all that into consideration before you wrote that, didn’t you?
This. And have you ever tried to get an appointment through TriCare?
I needed an overseas medical screening. We’re out of the country for two years since Mrs.Safe is being transferred to another command (and finally a shore job - hard to get for nukes!). I called to make it, after having taken up the necessary paperwork some weeks prior. Could I make it over the phone? No. We’ll call you back with an appointment time. Rinse and repeat for three weeks. Finally I just decided to make a nuisance of myself on the phone until they gave up and got me an appointment.
Based on the fact that he’s condemning Medicare for not breaking even, it’s very doubtful he grasps that point, either. Or, if he does, he doesn’t think it’s important compared to the glee he feels in bashing Democrats for any pretext he can grab. Some six-year-olds just never grow up.
Then they need to raise the tax rate to cover, or ration the services, or both.
The program worked based on faulty assumptions about population growth, longevity and the cost of delivery. Any program that expands Medicare must take that into account if it is to be a viable solution.
No they need to extend Medicare to cover all people. They will have people paying in that don’t use it so much. They will have people in that would not use use it at all. Then they will show profit.
I’m not surprised, yet I’m still angry. No contradiction there.
Only if you:
A) Charge them enough to cover their cost PLUS the cost of the elderly
B) FORCE them to join
I have no problem with forcing the carrying of some type of health insurance IF there is a public option that does not turn anyone away. However, I want to maintain the choice of programs that fits my needs, desires, and financial situation. If I want to join Kaiser’s HMO in California, then I should be able to. If I just want a high-deductible plan and a Medical savings account, I should be allowed to. I want Blue Cross’ PPO, I can. If I want the craptastic government plan because it is cheap to me and they take anybody - great.
I bolded the part I’ll refer to.
It’s a flat out lie, the Dems are trying to pass laws designed to help their target demographic and keep themselves in power. Plain and simple.
Thus goes the political game we have created and fail to fix.
To wit, the solid majority of people. How is that a problem for you?
Tyranny of the majority eh?
It isn’t a problem for me, it’s a problem for us all.
Laws “designed to help” (your own frickin’ words) are “tyranny”? Do you even know what all this “democracy” stuff IS? How it works? What it’s for?
Puh-leeze. :rolleyes:
By those same tokens, Kings and Queens "pass laws to help people " too.
Is that tyranny?
If 75% of a given populace wants to rid themselves of the impoverished and unclean, do they pass laws doing so and is this sustainable or morally right?
Do you not see past your nose when talking about “what is right and good”?
Just so we know what we are arguing about:
Tommy Douglas who started the Canadian health care system was voted the best loved Canadian of all time. Some of the Dems are aware that the people will be grateful if we get a good health care system running. But many are being bought off by the insurance and Pharm lobbyists. They lack guts and long term vision. But is a good system was implemented it would help everybody. It would take it off the backs of companies and make them more competitive internationally . It would stop the fighting between insurance companies and their clients who are getting screwed by them .
No it is not a lie. But what demographic are you referring to? Dems are the majority and include all walks of life. They are not like the reps who consist primarily of the rich and the retarded. Are you rich?
Dear Lord, you really don’t know what democracy is.
Not nearly rich enough to be considered rich.
Gonzo, you admitted to dems being “bought off” but you still think it’s a good system? I can’t remember many good things that have come from a one sided Congress, ever.
Dems have control of the White House and the Congress, they need to man the fuck up and accept the responsibilities that go along with that power.
So far, they are doing a piss poor job of it. All I’ve heard is Bush.
And I guess you don’t understand that we aren’t a “democracy”
Okay, that leaves “retarded”.
Appreciate the candor, even in the pit. When you fail to “win”, name-call!
Check!
Dude, go visit your local junior high school, ask for an appointment with the Civics teacher, and spend a little time learning what the basic principles of democracy are. When you’ve done that, you can shed the label you walked into.
Why don’t you enlighten me? Are you smarter than a 6th grade civics teacher?
Pay careful observation to the bolded part here:
"The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government or constitutional protections of individual liberties from democratic power it is possible for dissenting individuals to be oppressed by the “tyranny of the majority”. "