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

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

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

Yup its all about race :clown

Rick Perry is a grade A Ass Clown.

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.

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.

It is in texas. :1orglaugh

I'm just guessing the way you PERSONALLY feel, based on the wording of the thread title... :1orglaugh

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

Texas is a funny place.

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? :helpme

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.

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 :1orglaugh

funny isn't it.

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

CHerry and Tony are making it sound like the American people will get the same care as the politicians :1orglaugh

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

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. :thumbsup

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

:thumbsup

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

:eek7:eek7

Which is STILL better than no care at all.

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

fuck those shit kickers:2 cents: :thumbsup

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.

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 .... :1orglaugh

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

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

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?

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

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... :1orglaugh

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?

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.

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

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?

Sadly... that really is the bottom line here. Those fuckers are pissed! :2 cents:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

100% agree.

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.