Texas May Tell Obama To Shove His Health Care Plan Up His Ass

[IllTestYourGirls]

http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html

AUSTIN ? Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states? rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president?s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas? WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.

"I think you?ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no? to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I?m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Perry, the state?s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.

Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama?s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.

'Not the solution?

"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It?s not the solution."

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year?s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."

Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."

Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor?s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."

"I don?t think it?s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama?s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."

The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry?s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."

High stakes in Texas

Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry?s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.

Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.

"There are good solutions" to the country?s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn?t it."

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration?s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."

"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don?t dig our country further into debt," he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can?t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don?t care whether you?re Democrat or Republican," he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they?re sure not representing Texas."

[BobG]

Translation: "We ain't gone let no n**gr tell us what's raight."

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by BobG

Translation: "We ain't gone let no n**gr tell us what's raight."

Yup its all about race

[_andy_]

Rick Perry is a grade A Ass Clown.

[Kingfish]

Amazing the lengths these guys with go protect health insurance companies profits. It is ass backwards as these guys feel like they?re entitled to reap unlimited profits from shuffling paper.

[Ayla_SquareTurtle]

Unfortunately, here in Texas, much of it IS about race. On top of that, this is a very complex state politically despite what many may think. We have areas that are overwhelmingly conservative/republican living 3 blocks from areas that are overwhelmingly liberal/democrat and people don't always vote the way you think they will.

Obama didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in Texas but that doesn't mean Texans won't vote for/support his policies after the fact if they think it will help them. There are a LOT of people who vote republican and would never have voted for Obama no matter what, but they'll sure take that "free" health care when it comes time.

On top of that, we have a situation that is becoming more and more publicized where a huge amount of public funds for hospitals are being spent on illegal immigrants who come into emergency rooms to deliver babies or even for primary care with no ability or intention of ever paying. In some hospitals in the DFW where I live, there are more babies born each day to illegal immigrants who will never pay than to US citizens with insurance coverage or who are paying out of pocket. It doesn't take much to figure out what that means for taxpayers. We're subsidizing health insurance for Mexico, basically.

Texas is already spending a massive amount of money on medical care for people who aren't paying into any kind of system. A lot of Texans need health insurance. (1 in 4 according to figures above.) They just may take it where they can get it.

[bushwacker]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yup its all about race

It is in texas.

[DonovanTrent]

I'm just guessing the way you PERSONALLY feel, based on the wording of the thread title...

[_andy_]

Total political posturing to win the republican base's support for his upcoming election.

[TheSenator]

Texas is a funny place.

[kane]

Standard issue Texas. They like to talk a big game, but if Obama does pass a healthcare plan that covers everyone and he somehow blocks it from being used in Texas I would assume that the 1 in 4 people in Texas who don't have health insurance will be voting him out of office in the next election.

He is angry because the plan could cost Texas a lot of money, which is a legit concern, but what are all those uninsured people already costing it is the question.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by kane

Standard issue Texas. They like to talk a big game, but if Obama does pass a healthcare plan that covers everyone and he somehow blocks it from being used in Texas I would assume that the 1 in 4 people in Texas who don't have health insurance will be voting him out of office in the next election.

He is angry because the plan could cost Texas a lot of money, which is a legit concern, but what are all those uninsured people already costing it is the question.

The bigger question is why are those people costing the state (tax payers) anything at all?

[billyb]

I am glad this will not pass, I thank the 52 blue dog Democrats who are holding firm against this. They know if they vote for this, they will lose in the 2010 elections. Most of these blue dogs come from areas where W won big.

They allow this to pass their done, I feel sorry for Texas and us here in California. People worry about illegal alliens, but they will be covered under this plan too. The Democrats defeated an amendment to not cover them, so they will be able to get health care if this passess.

Such is life, this is another way to bring the US down. This is nothing new, it started 80 years ago with FDR.

[tony286]

I find it amusing listening to anti government healthcare politicians who get great government health care. lol

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by tony404

I find it amusing listening to anti government healthcare politicians who get great government health care. lol

Obama wont even opt for the health care plan he is telling Americans to get

[cherrylula]

Originally Posted by tony404

I find it amusing listening to anti government healthcare politicians who get great government health care. lol

funny isn't it.

[_andy_]

Originally Posted by billyb

Such is life, this is another way to bring the US down. This is nothing new, it started 80 years ago with FDR.

Yeah I mean, because social security has just really screwed so many people. I mean, what a terrible thing.

[IllTestYourGirls]

CHerry and Tony are making it sound like the American people will get the same care as the politicians

Sadly it will look more like the care our vets are getting

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by _andy_

Yeah I mean, because social security has just really screwed so many people. I mean, what a terrible thing.

If you invested the money you put into SS the interest alone would be more than the SS payments you receive, and if you die early, you still get to give that money to your family, unlike SS. So yes to all those who paid into SS and died you screwed their family big time.

[slapass]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

If you invested the money you put into SS the interest alone would be more than the SS payments you receive, and if you die early, you still get to give that money to your family, unlike SS. So yes to all those who paid into SS and died you screwed their family big time.

This is only true if you failed fifth grade math. This has been debunked over and over and people still believe it...

[HighEnergy]

I hope Texas rejoins Mexico, it will save us billions and billions of dollars.

article & video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_204199.html

[bushwacker]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

If you invested the money you put into SS the interest alone would be more than the SS payments you receive, and if you die early, you still get to give that money to your family, unlike SS. So yes to all those who paid into SS and died you screwed their family big time.

[Babaganoosh]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

CHerry and Tony are making it sound like the American people will get the same care as the politicians

Sadly it will look more like the care our vets are getting

Which is STILL better than no care at all.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by Babaganoosh

Which is STILL better than no care at all.

Just like the slaves were better off in slavery than without a job

[brassmonkey]

fuck those shit kickers

[ottyhotties]

How is this about race? What about unfunded mandates that would lead us to having higher state taxes or property taxes? In order to shave costs of the plan they're forcing states through Medicare/Medicaid to cough up cash they simply don't have. I'm pulling this statistic from memory but Medicaid is funded 57% by the federal government and has been an unfunded mandate on the states. States simply can't afford anymore of these unfunded mandates without having higher taxes.

Why can't a governor look at his state books and say his state can't afford such a program without being labeled a racist? How do you propose paying for these unfunded mandates people? Should Texas institute a $10 subscription fee to porn sites in order to help pay for it? You guys support that? I swear some of you people think high taxes and printing money isn't going to have any consequences at all.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by TheSenator

Texas is a funny place.

What are you talking about ... it is a very normal lace .... Look:

Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools

State's education board to consider adding Christianity's role in American history to curriculum

The Christian right is making a fresh push to force religion onto the school curriculum in Texas with the state's education board about to consider recommendations that children be taught that there would be no United States if it had not been for God.

Members of a panel of experts appointed by the board to revise the state's history curriculum, who include a Christian fundamentalist preacher who says he is fighting a war for America's moral soul, want lessons to emphasise the part played by Christianity in the founding of the US and that religion is a civic virtue.

Opponents have decried the move as an attempt to insert religious teachings in to the classroom by stealth, similar to the Christian right's partially successful attempt to limit the teaching of evolution in biology lessons in Texas.

One of the panel, David Barton, founder of a Christian heritage group called WallBuilders, argues that the curriculum should reflect the fact that the US Constitution was written with God in mind including that "there is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature", that "there is a creator" and "government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual".

Barton says children should be taught that Christianity is the key to "American exceptionalism" because the structure of its democratic system is a recognition that human beings are fallible, and that religion is at the heart of being a virtuous citizen.

Another of the experts is Reverend Peter Marshall, who heads his own Christian ministry and preaches that Hurricane Katrina and defeat in the Vietnam war were God's punishment for sexual promiscuity and tolerance of homosexuals. Marshall recommended that children be taught about the "motivational role" of the Bible and Christianity in establishing the original colonies that later became the US.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...tory-education

normal place ... sounds like the flip-side of Iran ....

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

What are you talking about ... it is a very normal lace .... Look:

Christian right aims to change history lessons in Texas schools



normal place ... sounds like the flip-side of Iran ....

[kane]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

If you invested the money you put into SS the interest alone would be more than the SS payments you receive, and if you die early, you still get to give that money to your family, unlike SS. So yes to all those who paid into SS and died you screwed their family big time.

The average wage in the US is $16 an hour. So that is 32K a year. So if you started when you were 25 and you put 8% in every year without fail and got 3% interest (I picked that number because you would want something stable. The stock market could spike then collapse and it could screw you over. So if you took 3% that would give you around 202K at age 65. 3% interest gives you around 6K a year off of that so just to get what you would draw off of SS you would need to draw an additional 9K a year out of that on top of the interest you get.

So, in theory it would last you a long time. But this is also taking into consideration that you still have medicare/medicaid for health coverage. If you would have to supply that yourself, then how long your savings would last would depend on your health. If, at that age, you are still in good health it could still last you a while. If you need a lot of medicine or run into a health problem you could drain that pretty quickly.

Of course there are a lot of things to take into consideration like raises, education and the interest rate you could get. I'm just making this as an example that it could work, but it would still require people to have everything go perfectly and they would still need medicare/medicaid

[kane]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

The bigger question is why are those people costing the state (tax payers) anything at all?

Well the technical answer is that they go to the ER and get treatment then the don't pay and that cost gets passed on to everyone else. If those hospitals are publicly funded then much of the cost gets passed on the tax payers.

The more philosophical side of this is should we give these people treatment? If someone walks into the ER and needs care and has no insurance should they be turned away?

[AmeliaG]

Originally Posted by slapass

This is only true if you failed fifth grade math. This has been debunked over and over and people still believe it...

Very simple debunking link featuring fifth grade or lower math please?

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

The bigger question is why are those people costing the state (tax payers) anything at all?

Because we live in the real world, where people are not turned away from emergency rooms (read: Hippocratic oath), things cost money and someone has to pay for it.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Obama wont even opt for the health care plan he is telling Americans to get

Because he has a better plan. And if you do, as well, you'd have the option to stay on it.

Funny thing, I was talking with an older gentleman the other day, he was getting all blustery about "government-run healthcare" and "socialism" and rar rar rar rar. I listened for a bit and I said "if it's all such a bad idea, maybe we should get rid of medicare and medicaid and use that money to pay down our debt." He did a 180 and was like, oh no, THOSE are ok...

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by kane

Well the technical answer is that they go to the ER and get treatment then the don't pay and that cost gets passed on to everyone else. If those hospitals are publicly funded then much of the cost gets passed on the tax payers.

The more philosophical side of this is should we give these people treatment? If someone walks into the ER and needs care and has no insurance should they be turned away?

No they should not be turned away at all. But the morality of the issue does not fall on the tax payer it falls on the hospital itself. The next philosophical questions should be, should a person be held at gun point to pay for a strangers health care?

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

Because we live in the real world, where people are not turned away from emergency rooms (read: Hippocratic oath), things cost money and someone has to pay for it.



Because he has a better plan. And if you do, as well, you'd have the option to stay on it.

Funny thing, I was talking with an older gentleman the other day, he was getting all blustery about "government-run healthcare" and "socialism" and rar rar rar rar. I listened for a bit and I said "if it's all such a bad idea, maybe we should get rid of medicare and medicaid and use that money to pay down our debt." He did a 180 and was like, oh no, THOSE are ok...

Yes someone should pay for it, the hospital, not me, not you, unless we choose to.

Yes under this current plan you can keep your plan. But you can never change it. And insurance companies can not insure new people.

Yes, its sad that people have become dependent on the government. We should slowly get rid of medicare and medicaid.

[STAROTICA]

Texas can do whatever it wants......and when its time to be at the end of the FEDERAL government's coffers....you will here Obama say....."Say What?".

old example-
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_medi...0_01/chip.html

and then so what of this-

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009...imes-any-state

[kane]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

No they should not be turned away at all. But the morality of the issue does not fall on the tax payer it falls on the hospital itself. The next philosophical questions should be, should a person be held at gun point to pay for a strangers health care?

Many hospitals are publicly funded so when they treat people that don't pay they will need more money and when they are publicly funded that money comes from the public.

If public hospitals were done away with and were all privately owned, but still treated everyone regardless of it if they would pay, guess who would pay? We the regular tax payers. The reason is this: they would need more money and they would get that money by overcharging people with insurance or who are actually going to pay (pretty much all hospitals already do this, but with no public funding the amounts would be even higher) this would cause your insurance rates to go up or if you went in and paid cash the cost would go up. So in the end those with insurance and decent paying jobs would be the ones that would eventually pick up the bill.

If you are going to accept and treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay someone is going to end up paying for it and you can bet it won't be the people that own/operate the hospitals.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by kane

Many hospitals are publicly funded so when they treat people that don't pay they will need more money and when they are publicly funded that money comes from the public.

If public hospitals were done away with and were all privately owned, but still treated everyone regardless of it if they would pay, guess who would pay? We the regular tax payers. The reason is this: they would need more money and they would get that money by overcharging people with insurance or who are actually going to pay (pretty much all hospitals already do this, but with no public funding the amounts would be even higher) this would cause your insurance rates to go up or if you went in and paid cash the cost would go up. So in the end those with insurance and decent paying jobs would be the ones that would eventually pick up the bill.

If you are going to accept and treat anyone regardless of their ability to pay someone is going to end up paying for it and you can bet it won't be the people that own/operate the hospitals.

Should someone be held at gun point to pay for a strangers health care?

[Iron Fist]

Originally Posted by BobG

Translation: "We ain't gone let no n**gr tell us what's raight."

Sadly... that really is the bottom line here. Those fuckers are pissed!

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yes someone should pay for it, the hospital, not me, not you, unless we choose to.

OK, so the hospitals should pay for taking care of people who can't afford to pay. Where's this magic money going to come from? Because under your in-a-nutshell proposal there, they can't raise rates directly to YOU, they can't get it from insurance companies (it would trickle down to YOU with higher rates) and they can't get it from the govt (it would trickle down to YOU with higher taxes).

What, they should have a bake sale? I'm not saying you're necessarily WRONG, just trying to get a full picture of your logic and how it fits into the real world.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yes under this current plan you can keep your plan. But you can never change it. And insurance companies can not insure new people.

Again, not saying you're necessarily WRONG, and certainly not saying the "current plan" (whichever plan that may be, there are multiple ones floating around) is perfect. I haven't read every word of every proposal, but I don't remember seeing that insurance companies would not be able to take on new customers. I'm sure you'll quote something, that's fine, just make sure it comes from a neutral source and cite the source.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Yes, its sad that people have become dependent on the government. We should slowly get rid of medicare and medicaid.

Maybe. The only real solution is to totally scrap everything about our healthcare system -- medicare, medicaid and all insurance companies -- and rebuild from the ground up, in whatever direction that may be, totally govt-run or totally free market. That obviously can't happen, so whatever we end up with, no matter what side proposes it, it's going to be a Frankenstein's monster that is going to screw SOMEBODY over. There's no avoiding that.

[Bill8]

I'm glad texas wont take it.

More health care money for the rest of us.

But I'll bet anybody a hundred bucks that when push comes to shove texas will be in line for the money.

Republicans always talk tough but act like pussies.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

Maybe. The only real solution is to totally scrap everything about our healthcare system -- medicare, medicaid and all insurance companies -- and rebuild from the ground up, in whatever direction that may be, totally govt-run or totally free market. That obviously can't happen.

True enough.

Especially the 'can't happen' part.

Too much money is on the table - which means 'real solutions' are off the table.

---

But, we can only hope those texans have the cajones to actually refuse to take health care money.

That would be about the funniest thing that ever happened in texas.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

OK, so the hospitals should pay for taking care of people who can't afford to pay. Where's this magic money going to come from? Because under your in-a-nutshell proposal there, they can't raise rates directly to YOU, they can't get it from insurance companies (it would trickle down to YOU with higher rates) and they can't get it from the govt (it would trickle down to YOU with higher taxes).

What, they should have a bake sale? I'm not saying you're necessarily WRONG, just trying to get a full picture of your logic and how it fits into the real world.



Again, not saying you're necessarily WRONG, and certainly not saying the "current plan" (whichever plan that may be, there are multiple ones floating around) is perfect. I haven't read every word of every proposal, but I don't remember seeing that insurance companies would not be able to take on new customers. I'm sure you'll quote something, that's fine, just make sure it comes from a neutral source and cite the source.



Maybe. The only real solution is to totally scrap everything about our healthcare system -- medicare, medicaid and all insurance companies -- and rebuild from the ground up, in whatever direction that may be, totally govt-run or totally free market. That obviously can't happen, so whatever we end up with, no matter what side proposes it, it's going to be a Frankenstein's monster that is going to screw SOMEBODY over. There's no avoiding that.

Where would the money come from? People like you, tony, me and others that want to help people so instead of the government coming to your house with guns to take the money you freely give your money to a hospital that you wish to have your money.

When I say current plan I am talking about the plan that is in congress right now. I would have to dig up the quotes the bill is 1000 plus pages.

Here is part of it "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

I personally think all insurances should be made illegal. They are just a form of subsidy. Hospitals would be forced to charge what the avg customer could afford, or even have a sliding scale, what ever worked for them.

[DonovanTrent]

Yes, I'd love to see Texas secede. That would really show the rest of us who's boss, especially when they're twisting in the wind after their next hurricane or whatever befalls them.

Reminds me of when the Frenchies wanted Quebec to secede from Canada. That would've been hilarious to watch, if it would've actually happened.

[kane]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Should someone be held at gun point to pay for a strangers health care?

No but should a business owner? If you owned a sandwich shop and you were forced to give free food to 20% of the people that walked in should you be forced to shoulder the financial burden for those non-payers?

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Where would the money come from? People like you, tony, me and others that want to help people so instead of the government coming to your house with guns to take the money you freely give your money to a hospital that you wish to have your money.

OK, I was reading your posts as "I would not give money." Fair enough, my misread.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

When I say current plan I am talking about the plan that is in congress right now. I would have to dig up the quotes the bill is 1000 plus pages.

Therein lies a major problem with our governmental system: bills that are so long and so legalese that neither any of us nor most of the people voting on them have actually read them.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Here is part of it "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

I don't base anything on quotes like that, I'd have to read the entire thing. Often, quotes taken out of context can take on a directly opposite meaning to what they ACTUALLY mean when taken within their context. I hope you agree.

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I personally think all insurances should be made illegal. They are just a form of subsidy. Hospitals would be forced to charge what the avg customer could afford, or even have a sliding scale, what ever worked for them.

If healthcare were truly pay-as-you-go, prices would be lower for all of us.

No patient has a clue what a Bindenjender-Floxamaster test costs, so they have no reason NOT to want insurance to pay for it, if there's a snowball's chance it could find something. And doctors are basically paid for piecework rather than results, so why not run the extra probably-unnecessary test?

That's 90% of the problem right there. People in this country have lost focus on what health insurance REALLY should be for: catastrophic events. Not for checkups or crap like that. Health insurance plans should really be more like $5000 deductibles that are designed to help you out if your kidney explodes or whatever. Not for doing 22 different tests because you have a jerky knee.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by kane

No but should a business owner? If you owned a sandwich shop and you were forced to give free food to 20% of the people that walked in should you be forced to shoulder the financial burden for those non-payers?

Of course not. Im not asking them to. There are other ways to fund and help those who can not pay than by the government doing it. Have faith in people like tony404 to fork up his money to help others without having the government make him do it. He is a good guy, I know he and millions of others would willingly give their money to hospitals in their area.

The hospitals could always find ways to fund those who can not pay. It is part of business.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

The bigger question is why are those people costing the state (tax payers) anything at all?

Umm how many of those people whom love to cry about illegals turn around and hire them. If the illegals couldn't get a job they wouldn't be there, end of story. "If" Texas and the rest of the country "actually" wanted to do something about illegals then they would fine the employers.

/end of story..

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by DonovanTrent

I don't base anything on quotes like that, I'd have to read the entire thing. Often, quotes taken out of context can take on a directly opposite meaning to what they ACTUALLY mean when taken within their context. I hope you agree.



If healthcare were truly pay-as-you-go, prices would be lower for all of us.

No patient has a clue what a Bindenjender-Floxamaster test costs, so they have no reason NOT to want insurance to pay for it, if there's a snowball's chance it could find something. And doctors are basically paid for piecework rather than results, so why not run the extra probably-unnecessary test?

That's 90% of the problem right there. People in this country have lost focus on what health insurance REALLY should be for: catastrophic events. Not for checkups or crap like that. Health insurance plans should really be more like $5000 deductibles that are designed to help you out if your kidney explodes or whatever. Not for doing 22 different tests because you have a jerky knee.

The section is on page 16 under "Limitation on Enrollment". Section 102a1a

I agree with the biggest problem is that insurance has become something it shouldnt be and people now think insurance = care.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by crockett

Umm how many of those people whom love to cry about illegals turn around and hire them. If the illegals couldn't get a job they wouldn't be there, end of story. "If" Texas and the rest of the country "actually" wanted to do something about illegals then they would fine the employers.

/end of story..

100% agree.

[DonovanTrent]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

I agree with the biggest problem is that insurance has become something it shouldnt be and people now think insurance = care.

Yep. Show me car insurance that pays for tuneups. Same principle should apply to health insurance.

Taking this back to the original topic... Rick Perry's a tool of enormous proportions.