Welcome to PatsFans.com

I will support health care reform if....

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatriotsReign, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    They guarantee us it won't result in an increase in gov't workers. The last thing this country needs if more federal employees to support.

    I "might" consider it EVEN with increases in gov't employees "If"

    1. they take their pensions away and run it like a private company.
    2. Have benefits equal to the average private sector employee. (i.e. no 6 weeks vacation after 3 years and NO vacation carry-over year to year.
    3. Make it as easy top fire them as it is in the private sector. (gov't employees must be as competitive as the private sector)
    4. Have no quotas along racial lines.

    I truly do support some reform and cost controls. I'll admit I have no idea WHAT changes need to be made (I don't think anyone does).
    Finally, I do believe every American citizen deserves a minimum level of health care as a right.

    If you want great benefits, they must be earned. Unmotivated dopes don't deserve them (not that all gov't employees are either, but some see gov't jobs as "I'm set for life" once they get them).
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  2. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +30 / 12 / -2

    I believe people should be able to buy affordable health insurance.
    It should not be free, but it should be affordable.

    I believe the only way to get this to work they first need to do something
    to lower the Doctors malpractice insurance cost.
    If you do not cap malpractice suits, your not going to get a system
    that does not cost tax payers a bundle.

    The question is..... Does Obama have the guts to take on the trial lawyers?

    I have my doubts.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0


    First of all, there is no need to create two straight crappy threads about healthcare, where you offer little substance on either thread.

    Second, the malpractice isn't the issue. Private insurance companies are making boat loads right now, and are the fiercest opponents to national health care. They keep lying that it will cost more and work less well, when every other national system costs less and their people live longer. They are the biggest loser in a future national health care system.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    Tort reform would reduce medical expenses by no more than 2%. I've seen estimates as low as 0.5%, but am using a link that uses 2%:

    Would tort reform make much difference in health care costs? Probably not: Analysis | National News - cleveland.com - - cleveland.com

    How would you propose capping malpractice suits? If a doctor shows up overtired and causes a loss of oxygen to the patient's brain, who should be responsible for the life-long care costs? If a doctor is careless, and fails to properly suture a wound, which results in infection and death, how much protection do you want to give the doctor as opposed to the victim and his/her family? If a hospital fails to invest in necessary upgrades because of the cost, do you prefer that the hospital pay a capped amount (which would be cheaper than investing in equipment) or should the hospital have the choice of either risking steep legal fees or making necessary investments?

    While I can understand your opposition to victims rights here, liberals tend to side with the victims, not the perpetrators. Of course, there is the occasional case that has an outlandish settlement, but that exists in every aspect of the law. Often CEOs who are fired get multimillion dollar settlement that pale in comparison to what an injured child might get, but conservatives apparently prefer to go after the little guy.

    Perhaps you know what you're talking about and simply need to be more precise in what you're saying. But, as it stands, it sounds like you're siding with perpetrators because once in a great while our legal system fails and someone gets a lot of money for no good reason.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,652
    Likes Received:
    113
    Ratings:
    +142 / 1 / -4

    vThey guarantee us it won't result in an increase in gov't workers. The last thing this country needs if more federal employees to support.

    I "might" consider it EVEN with increases in gov't employees "If"

    1. they take their pensions away and run it like a private company. [/quote]

    Do you mean run it like GM, Countrywide, Halliburton, WorldCom, Enron, etc.? You'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that the government is significantly less efficient than private enterprise, especially given that most debt is held by private enterprise and individuals, not by government.

    Government jobs generally pay less than the private sector but offer some superior benefits. You prefer higher pay for government employees and fewer benefits?

    Where there are union contracts, the government is bound just as private enterprise is. Do you oppose unions? Government can fire people and does. Ronald Reagan fired 11000 air traffic controllers and banned them from federal work for life (which Clinton rescinded), even though many of them were veterans. Is that the kind of thing you favor?

    Do you support the same for private enterprise? How about a construction company that happens to be 95% white in an area where 25% of the population is black? I'm just trying to understand your point here to see if you're talking about the conservative terror of so called reverse discrimination.

    Can you provide any evidence to support your claim? I would agree that tiny minorities of employees in both the private and public sectors have a sense of entitlement, but I think by and large Americans who work for government are the same as Americans who work for private enterprise.
  6. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,240
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +317 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    What century are you living in?

    1) There are no more "govenment" funded pensions - there are TSP's which the employee contributes to him/herself - not unlike most private sector retirement plans. Government only allows to carry a certain amount, anyhow. Again, not at all unusual, no matter where you work.

    2) 6 weeks after 3 years? Ummm, I don't think so. As to the "carry over" I had carry over vacation and sick time when I worked private sector - it's not all that unusual.

    3) Ever try to fire a member of a Union?

    4) I'll have to research this one - but I'll get back to ya on it, I promise.

    As to undeserved salaries - try these on for size and then quit worrying about what a Grade 4 government employee makes (because it isn't much) and try to stay on topic - figure out where your health care premiums are really going - and why they're as high as they are.

    * Ron Williams - Aetna - Total Compensation: $24,300,112.
    * H. Edward Hanway - CIGNA - Total Compensation: $12,236,740.
    * Angela Braly - WellPoint - Total Compensation: $9,844,212.
    * Dale Wolf - Coventry Health Care - Total Compensation: $9,047,469.
    * Michael Neidorff - Centene - Total Compensation: $8,774,483.
    * James Carlson - AMERIGROUP - Total Compensation: $5,292,546.
    * Michael McCallister - Humana - Total Compensation: $4,764,309.
    * Jay Gellert - Health Net - Total Compensation: $4,425,355.
    * Richard Barasch - Universal American - Total Compensation: $3,503,702.
    * Stephen Hemsley - UnitedHealth Group - Total Compensation: $3,241,042.

    Don't let Third Way, the Ben Nelson's or Republicans be the next Harry and Louise | Crooks and Liars
  7. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,786
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +77 / 5 / -7

    #37 Jersey


    You'll never seer it, your boy Obama is so indebted to the SIEU and AFSCME.

    Anyone defending government employees is either one themselves or married to one.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,344
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +255 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    I don't see why this is the issue, PR. The issue is whether we should be spending $2T over 10 years to cut in half (not eliminate) the number of uninsured. It's a massive tax increase on everyone, forget the "$81B savings", that just means taxes will be increased by enough to pay for it + $81B.

    We need to be looking at ways to lower health costs, that includes tort reform and it includes opening up insurance so we can select our policies. Most (probably all) of us just get to pick from pre made plans - why not let me make up my own policy, like car insurance, so I pay less but only get coverage for what I want. Instead of picking on health insurance we need to open them up to more competition and a "public option" isn't the best way to do that.
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0



    This number is deliberately misleading and used, because they don't want people to look at how much less % of GDP the US will use if on nationalized care. Why don't they mention they're spending 30 Trillion over 10 years under a health system that is ranked terribly in life expectancy?
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  10. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,553
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +30 / 12 / -2


    You have a lot of really good points in your response.
    I have not done the research, so I cannot counter your stats.

    If a doctor makes a mistake they should be responsible for paying for
    the victims long term care.

    The Doctor should not be responsible for setting up the victims family in Beverly Hills.
  11. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    You gotta be effn' kiddin Patters! I know a guy who works for the PO....Post Office and those people are a J.O.K.E.! He works in the south Boston postal center under "maintenance". He tells me guys drink on the job and they "hide" and watch football games etc. Same thing applies to the state highway dept and several others. If you don't think gov't jobs are a haven for people who want the easy way out, then you don't have a grip on reality. Our gov't is FULL of people just passing the time waiting for their 20 years to pass so they can retire.

    It has far, FAR more "connected" people working there. Any gov't dept (any of them) would be run more efficiently and for far less if it were privatized...and you know it.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009
  12. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,344
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +255 / 8 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    If it's going to cost less, why are taxes going up ? I've heard all the theoretical arguments from both sides but I haven't heard a viable argument for the cost coming down. If costs were coming down why does the taxman have his grubby hands out ?
  13. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    The people I know who work for the federal and state gov't haven't had their pensions taken away..."what century am I living in?" :rolleyes:

    The difference between gov't inefficiencies and the private sector is that I am FORCED to fund gov't workers with MY money (taxes). If I don't like what a private company does (and I agree with your assessment of over-paid CEO salaries), I don't have to buy their product. I'd rather see a CEO who has worked his/her butt off throughout their careers get over-paid than THOUSANDS of gov't workers getting the same. Whether it's in salary and/or benefits.

    Do you know what it feels like when I run into someone who's 50 and "retired" living large on a full-time salary in another job when I've worked my tail off all my life to get where I am? Too many people get gov't jobs via "connections". That's ok in the private sector because people don't last if they don't perform. If any sector should be prevented from hiring "people they know", it should be the public sector....ABSOLUTELY!
  14. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,240
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +317 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    So you know one guy who works for the Post Office (which does not receive even one dollar of federal tax money) and you can safely swear that they're all a J.O.K.E.? What happened to the guy who keeps saying he doesn't make judgements of groups based on the actions of a few? Who doesn't know at least one "joke" from whatever walk of life? I happen to think that Foggy and Ole Harry are crackpots - can I safely assume that you, too, are a crackpot since I know that 2 posters on a board are?

    Oh, and make up your mind - first you wanted all federal workers to make changes - now you've switched government agencies in a single thread - now you're railing against state employees.

    I can't wait to hear how you feel about cities since you're working your way down (or up) the food chain pretty quickly here......once you're done with city employees we can start talking about honking cab drivers and pushy used car salesmen and whistling construction workers and the time and money they waste.
  15. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0


    Your tax increase will cost less than private insurance, for most people.

    Most nations with nationalized insurance spend 8-9% of GDP on health care and live longer. The US spends 15% of GDP on health care die sooner.

    6% less GDP, means less spending overall.
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    DO NOT try to pre-empt me from attacking ALL gov't workers Mrs! Of course they're all the same. What is the difference between any gov't job whether it's city, state or federal? They'll all funded by our tax dollars.

    Like I said, if you don't think ALL gov't jobs have a much, MUCH higher rate of "free-loading" "looking for the easier, softer way" types, then you're just wrong. I worked 2 summers for the Weymouth Highway Dept. and I can't tell you how bad most of them were. They all saw themselves as being "all set" and you know, they probably were.

    As a matter of fact, I'm living proof of someone who has seen "the system" and has inside knowledge that what I'm saying is true. I got the job because my buddy's dad was chairman of the ways and means committee in the Massachusetts state house. It was wrong that he was able to get me that job. But I was 18...what the hell did I know?

    Hey, just look at our state rep's who regurlarly give themselves raises. Now who among us wouldn't want a job like that?:cool:
  17. ljuneau

    ljuneau Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2007
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Nice numbers. Can you pull a rabbit out of that hat too?

    As proven by the national health care of other countries: The insurance will cost more, longer wait times for health care service, and the quality of care will decrease. And still only half of today's uninsured will be covered.

    As stated in other threads, the relationship of cost and life span is something you are making up, yet you keep stating it. Weak.
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    Debate over....You win. Someone will be very dissappointed.
  19. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,240
    Likes Received:
    227
    Ratings:
    +317 / 8 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    I didn't say they had them taken away. No one said anything was "taken away." I said that the pension plans offered by the Federal Government today are nothing like the pensions plans which were government funded back in "da day."

    Sure - and I'm sure that means you don't drive a car, insure a vehicle, possess health insurance, own a home, rent an apartment, buy groceries or fly on airplanes.


    Well, honestly, I guess for you it must feel simply terrible since you feel the need to mention it. For me, I say, "more power to ya - wish I'd have thought of it." That is IF I meet one of those people....and even here in DC it's much rarer than you think.....most of the people I know who've retired at 50 are/were military - and god bless 'em just for knowing that the risk of NOT reaching 50 is so much higher for them than it is for me.

    Here's the government (federal) rule on retiring early.

    The only employees who are eligible to retire before age 55 (or at the MRA for FERS) with immediate unreduced benefits are those in special groups (such as law enforcement officers, air traffic controllers and firefighters), those who are offered voluntary early retirement by their agencies and those subject to discontinued service retirement.

    Eligibility: Facts and Myths (7/6/07) -- www.GovernmentExecutive.com

    While we're on the topic, however, what about those good ole boy unionized auto workers and their early retirement deals? Last I heard auto companies which cut those deals with their workers were private sector, yes?

    I do notice you've not responded to the 6 week vacation smack-down - or the carry-over vacation days - what's up with that?
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    25,633
    Likes Received:
    74
    Ratings:
    +152 / 1 / -10

    You say "more power to ya" to those taking your tax dollars? Well, good for you. Turn the other cheek, I guess, huh?

    Which is EXACTLY why I put union workers in the same boat as gov't workers. Give people an INCENTIVE to be look for the easy way out and they'll certainly find it.

    Look, the people are looking for the easy way out (often referred to as "security") know who they are. They can't lie to themselves. My sister in-law worked for the city of Hartford for 20 years. She is now collecting a 60% pension (about $50K) and now she's working full time for another town in CT. If you don't see anything wrong with that (i.e. citizens of CT are getting ripped off), I can't help you! She should have just retired and taken care of her children like a good wife/mother! :eek:

    Also, I do believe that anyone who served in the armed forces SHOULD be set for life. But I think those who saw action deserve more than those who served during times of peace or saw no action. Just my 2 cents.
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2009

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>