Brendan, it would put the consumer in the same drivers seat as one who attends a state university in another state. They sometimes double or triple the tuition to out-of-staters.
What is that public option and why do you think it is overlooked?
socialsecurity.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2011/medicaid.html for one. States have their own programs.
Well stated. In addition, in the Obamacare plan, decisions will be done by an appointed panel which will decide what and who gets things done. And nowhere does it say that this panel will constitute physicians or those in the medical field. I don’t think I want uninformed people decide for me. And as far as insurance goes, one of my daughters was prescribed a cardiac stress test by her family doctor. The insurance company turned it down. She was then referred to a cardiologist who ordered the test, and lo and behold, it was covered.
Two things about Medicaid: One is you must lose all but $2000 in assets to qualify. The other is many doctors will not take Medicaid patients. So while it may not be “broken”, it is quite rickety.
And why are these two statements the case?
The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 is no more an act of totalitarianism then Medicare. In fact it is an act of mercy on the tens of millions of people who did not have access to health care and the tens of thousands of people who died each year because a truly totalitarian system locked them out. The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Tim 6:3-10) and those calling “Obama Care” totalitarianism do so because its costing them something, MONEY!. Being truly pro life will always cost you something. Jesus said that unless you deny yourself and take up your cross and follow HIM you are not worthy of HIM.
No, it isn’t. It was a choice made by those who (apparently) believed it would work and it was a choice opposed by those who felt it would not. It was an entirely prudential decision and is no more moral to support or oppose it.
Are you unfamiliar with the prohibition against judging people and of the obligation of charity in interpreting their actions? It is astonishing to me that those who are so quick to cite some scripture passage to support their insults are so oblivious to the fact that they are … merely insults.
You’re joking, right?
Except, of course, that nobody really knows what Obamacare will or won’t do for anyone. Nobody know what the premiums for a “non-subsidized” person will be. Nobody even knows what the net premium for a “subsidized” person will be. The people who passed Obamacare didn’t read it, and admitted that. Nobody, apparently, had any thought that Obamacare would result in Obama forcing Catholic institutions to pay for abortion and contraceptive coverage. But nobody other than a fool would think “mandated, no-co pay” contraceptive and abortifacient coverage will NOT be paid for through insurance premiums. And this government has, through obamacare, pretty much carte blance authority to mandate whatever it wants to mandate.
I don’t know. I only mention them to refute your assertion that the existence of medicaid is proof that our current health system is not “broken” and that a viable public option already exists. I merely point out that the public option you refer to has serious limitations. Or did I misinterpret your posting #231?
LOL!
Maybe they don’t have access because they have misplaced priorities like they didn’t study in school so they could get a good job that allows them to afford it. Maybe they would rather spend their money on RVs and home theaters with expensive satellite sports packages. What kind of social justice allows kids to throw away their only opportunity to be self-sufficient later in life?
Speculating on the moral deficiencies that lead the needy to be needy has long been the rationalization used by some who are materially blessed by God for why they are blessed in this way and others are not.
How about answering my question, “What kind of social justice allows kids to throw away their only opportunity to be self-sufficient later in life?”
I was hoping you would say something like that. I think your entire justification [there is poverty out there, so let’s throw money at it to assuage my conscience] for redistributing wealth is just speculation, so I guess that makes us even.
I would suggest you find out before advocating the destruction of a system that 85% of those polled say they are happy with.
Why should strangers be expected to pay for her daughter’s needs when marymyheroine and her daughter are not willing to themselves?
I agree with almost everything you said, though I think it’s entirely possible that “medical tourism” by the wealthy might well cause there to be clinics in places like Monterrey, with some of the very best American physicians in them. People fly from all over the U.S. to M.D. Anderson. It’s not all that much farther to Monterrey. Maybe even a new “medical city” with its own airport.
I never claimed justification for any such thing. I just called you on your expression of Prosperity Theology.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn’t advocate the destruction of Medicaid or anything else.
The reasons why Medicaid has these limitations are irrelevant to the point I was making, although I can see why it would be more convenient for you to deflect the discussion away from your outrageous statement that a viable public option already exists. Just admit that statement was inaccurate and I will go away. (unless you meant the statement sarcastically, in which case I understand completely.)
Actually, I addressed it in post #207.
