jesseledesma jesseledesma

86% Inusred not a health care crisis, Hillary.

▼

86% Inusred not a health care crisis, Hillary.

Consumer rebellion to lower prices.

http://www.angelfire.com/psy/jesseledesma/
from JoeUser Forums
Ok, I really do not like HIllary Clinton and I think time is better spent focusing on the positives in the conservative movement.

However, this talk about a need for healthcare reform has gotten my attention. In this debate, the first point I would like to make is that less than 14 percent are uninsured in America. The news has been reporting that 44 million are unisured. Well, there is 300 known people in America.

I divided 300 in to 44 (300/44) and I got 13.6 percent. Now, how should we interpret this? To me this means that 86.4 percent are insured. Now can 86.4 percent insured people in America be a health care crisis?

In texas, even though you do not have insurance you can not be denied medical treatment at a hospital. Therefore, it cannot be that people are not getting treatment.

I think the reason healthcare is on the democrats and news media evil and sinister minds is that they cannot win with knocking Bush on Iraq and the economy.

Only a fool would say America has a bad economy. The economy is great. Tax revenue is up at the treasury. Salaries are up. Americans are saving and investing.

In addition, this last week's report by Patrues shows major improvements in Iraq. Conratualations and good job Mr. President.

Therefore, in my opinion, they are making up issues and the liberal-agenda driven news media is helping them democrats. The rhetoric is so high that some republicans are sounding the horn of neededd health care reform in America, also.

Now, what do I know about health care. Well I know we as people are not good at taking care of our selves and American medicine is "repair" medicine and not "illness prevention" medicine.

In addition, health insureance companies cheat and rob people. I was looking at insureance rates on the internet. The best I saw was a $88 a month premiun, a 2500 deductible, and a $35 dolor co-pay on doctor's visits. In El Paso a doctors visit is about $75.

Well, I used my financial calculator to figure out how much I would have if I put 88 a month into a five percent annual interest account and after taxes I would get 1,349. That is close to the deductable. Therefore, in my simple analysis it would be better to put $88 dollars in a five percent interst account and pay my medical bills from that, then pay for medical insureance.

Now for regular doctors visits and and maybe sound medicines this would be a good practice. However, what if I get a serious illness? Hum, good question. Well is there insureance where I can take care of the small stuff my self and have insureance cover the big stuff?

Oh that is right greedy and unscrupulous insureance comapnies do not like to pay for the big stuff. Don't they even deny people insureance for previous existing conditions?

Moreover, I have asked this question before and I will ask it again. "How can people with cell phones, cable/satelite TV, and internet justify asking the government to pay for their healthcare. I actually know people who pay $500 dollars a month on their cell phone bill, but do not have health or life insureance.

Of course I want to beat home the point that you cannot trust insureance companies. I do not want goverment forcing me to engage in a business relationship with business people I know are going to try and screw me at the first chance they get.

I don't mind being responsible. I'll even buy health insureance. However, some one better tell what they are going to do to keep CEO's of major insureance companies from leaving the coutnry with all my money. Remember Enron?

Okay, now I will trash hospitals. Yes they do charge more than they should, in my opinion. Look at the salaries of hospital administrators and you will see why you pay $100 dollars an aspirin that you can get a 100 for five bucks at the store.

Now, they will tell you it is for funding new medical technologies. I have never believed that lie. Hospital cost, in my opinion, are high because hospital administrators like to make a 500,000 a year salaries.

In my opinion, it is profitting at its worse.

This does not however allow Hillary and comapny to declare a health crisis in America. Again, 86 percent insured in America is not a crisis.

The poor not paying their fair share, greedy hospitals, greedy insureance companies, greedy pharmacies, and greedy politicians make for high health care in America.

Therefore, the issue for me is not that 13.6 percent in America are uninsured. The issue for me is the greed and waste in hospitals and doctors offices.

Insuring people will not lower prices. Forcing me to buy insureance will not lower prices. In this healthcare equation, not even competition lowers health prices.

May be a consumer rebellion where people picked hospitals and doctors offices to lower their prices might work."
politics
23,205 views 70 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
ColGene, I just got off medicaid because my wife now has a job with great benefits. It now costs MORE for me to be seen by a doctor and get my prescriptions. Sorry to burst your little warped bubble, but people on medicare/medicaid have MORE access to medical care than people with insurance. I've had to quit some treatments that I could do while on medicare, why? Because I can't afford the copay on insurance.

You can spread all the lies you want about how people on Medicare/Medicaid are being short changed, but having seen both sides, sorry, you are dead wrong.(as usual)
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
My step son was on Medicaid and many doctors would not accept that coverage. I also said with the Cuts that Bush has proposed in Medicaid, there will come a day when the available money will not be sufficient to pay for the medical care. He has been pushing more and more of the cost of Medicaid to the states. It is a BID SHELL GAME! Everyone wants benefits but no one wants to pay! Bush is about to request $190 Billion mostly for the Iraq war and at the same time said he will veto the Children’s health Bill. The Democrats should combine the Children’s health Bill with the Bush request for Iraq.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is about to request $190 Billion mostly for the Iraq war and at the same time said he will veto the Children’s health Bill. The Democrats should combine the Children’s health Bill with the Bush request for Iraq.


You mean the bill that gives more coverage to non-children, and people who have enough income to have insurance on their own.  It's hilarious how you just repeat DNC talking points without explaining the real story behind this bill.


Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
As well as illegal immigrants!


Yes, I forgot to mention that. 

Isn't it funny how people like gene who do nothing but complain about budgets and border security, has no problem wasting billions on giving handouts to people who don't need it?


Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please explain why Bush supported this in 2004 during the reelection campaign and now will VETO it? WHAT has changed? Do these children not need health coverage in 2007 as they did in 2004?
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush supports continued funding of the S-CHIP program, not a huge increase for people who don't need it.  You would think people like yourself who complain about budgets, would want government to control spending.

But since this is a democratic talking point, you just have to go along with it.


Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
But since this is a democratic talking point, you just have to go along with it.


And play to the ignorants' heart strings!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hehe check this out I just found out what would happen to Col if he actually thought for himself!

Free Smiley Face Courtesy of www.FreeSmileys.org


Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Until then he will just be:

Free Smiley Face Courtesy of www.FreeSmileys.org

Blue box stands for DNC.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
My step son was on Medicaid and many doctors would not accept that coverage.


This is a red herring ColGene... On private insurance you can go to some doctors, but not others too. For once in your life, come up with an argument that works!
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Col Shoots
but
Parated2K is the goal keeper!

Free Smiley Face Courtesy of www.FreeSmileys.org
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Watching that smiley for 90 minutes is more exciting than a real soccer game.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
Jythier, as a soccer lover... OUCH!! ;~D
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can make fun of it because I love it. And it's true, if you don't know about the strategies that are being developed every second of the game.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, September 28, 2007
Bush supports continued funding of the S-CHIP program, not a huge increase for people who don't need it. You would think people like yourself who complain about budgets, would want government to control spending.


NOT TRUE! Bush SUPPORTED EXPANDING THE SCHIP PROGRAM IN 2004. SINCE THIS BILL IS SELF FUNDING IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE BUDGET DFEICIT!
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
NOT TRUE! Bush SUPPORTED EXPANDING THE SCHIP PROGRAM IN 2004. SINCE THIS BILL IS SELF FUNDING IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE BUDGET DFEICIT!


First of all, why do you keep using capital letters and bold?  It doesn't make your arguement any better.

For the third time I have asked why you would support a bill that expands this coverage to people who are not children, are not poor, and allows loopholes for illegal immigrants to take advantage of government services?  I see all you worry about is Bush, and nothing else.


Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Friday, September 28, 2007
NOT TRUE! Bush SUPPORTED EXPANDING THE SCHIP PROGRAM IN 2004. SINCE THIS BILL IS SELF FUNDING IT DOES NOT INCREASE THE BUDGET DFEICIT!


“First of all, why do you keep using capital letters and bold? It doesn't make your argument any better.”

You do not seem to be able to read!

For the third time I have asked why you would support a bill that expands this coverage to people who are not children, are not poor, and allows loopholes for illegal immigrants to take advantage of government services? I see all you worry about is Bush, and nothing else.”


The vast majority of the added are children. Have you not noticed the vast majority of Congress from BOTH parties supported this bill? Bush supported this in 2004.

As I said, ANY member of Congress that is up for reelection in 2008 that does not vote to override any Bush veto of this bill should be identified to the voters and removed from office in November 2008!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
The vast majority of the added are children. Have you not noticed the vast majority of Congress from BOTH parties supported this bill? Bush supported this in 2004.


Because this bill is purely political at this point.  You once again didn't answer the question, which proves how much of a DNC hack you are.

Why should we provide money to people who can afford their own insurance, who are not children, and which has loopholes which allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of this?

Try to speak without using DNC talking points for once.


Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2007
“The vast majority of the added are children. Have you not noticed the vast majority of Congress from BOTH parties supported this bill? Bush supported this in 2004.


Because this bill is purely political at this point. You once again didn't answer the question, which proves how much of a DNC hack you are.”


You are full of BS. This bill is about helping Children. Bush has made it political. He has no problem asking for another $190 Billion for a war we should NEVER have started but lectures Congress about spending money to help over 3.5 Million Children who have NO health care. Today we had the Parable that Jesus told about Lazarus and the Rich Man. Bush and many on this Blog site should read St. Luke Ch 16, Vs 19-31.
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are full of BS. This bill is about helping Children. Bush has made it political


This is so funny.  You are truly a democratic hack if you believe this bill is anything but political to the democrats.  You are using the exact same talking points they are using. 

You still have not answered the question I have asked several times. 



Congress about spending money to help over 3.5 Million Children who have NO health care.


Bush said he would support extending the program, just not the added nonsense that was packed on to the bill.  You know, the nonsense you refuse to acknowledge because it's not part of the DNC talking points.
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top

“Bush said he would support extending the program, just not the added nonsense that was packed on to the bill. You know, the nonsense you refuse to acknowledge because it's not part of the DNC talking points.”


Do you know how many bills Bush signed that were PACKED with Pork and Earmarks when the GOP controlled Congress? He and you are full of BS and I hope that any GOP incumbents that put loyalty to Bush over the welfare of 3.5 Million Children is removed from Congress in November 2008!
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
Do you know how many bills Bush signed that were PACKED with Pork and Earmarks when the GOP controlled Congress? He and you are full of BS and I hope that any GOP incumbents that put loyalty to Bush over the welfare of 3.5 Million Children is removed from Congress in November 2008!


Gene, you are a democratic hack so you don't want any republican in office.  Once again you ignore the issue, why is that gene?

Do you not have a problem with extending coverage to non-children, to people that make enough to have their own insurance, and allow loopholes for illegal immigrants?

Just keep repeating the DNC talking points gene.


Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top





Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007
“Do you know how many bills Bush signed that were PACKED with Pork and Earmarks when the GOP controlled Congress? He and you are full of BS and I hope that any GOP incumbents that put loyalty to Bush over the welfare of 3.5 Million Children is removed from Congress in November 2008!


Gene, you are a democratic hack so you don't want any republican in office. Once again you ignore the issue, why is that gene?”

NO-- I do not want ANYONE in office that has acted like Bush and the GOP in Congress WHO have ignored the majority of Americans and have failed to solve the many important issues that face our country! There was a time when the GOP stood for balanced Budgets and keeping out of nation building. There was a time when the GOP controlled spending in a responsible way.

Today that is NOT the GOP. Today the Democrats are closer to those principals.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
NO-- I do not want ANYONE in office that has acted like Bush and the GOP in Congress WHO have ignored the majority of Americans and have failed to solve the many important issues that face our country!


You still can't address the real issue of the S-CHIP program, and are just repeating the usual rhetoric.  Although I would love to hear how democrats will actually do anything except push their socialist agenda.



Today that is NOT the GOP. Today the Democrats are closer to those principals.


Just like Hillary's new plan to give every child $5000 just for being born.  Yeah, look for democrats to balance the budget.  LOL.
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just like Hillary's new plan to give every child $5000 just for being born.


I was wondering about that...can "born again" Christians claim the $5000 TWICE?