- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
OK it is now official. Obama is a true idiot.
- Thread starter Fade
- Start date
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,141
- Reaction score
- 2,629
What? You wanna throw taxpayers money away on a bunch of drugged up gimps? What are you, a commie?
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,141
- Reaction score
- 2,629
redrumloa said:
What? You a commie too?
Did you ask these guys to go and get themselves shot? If you did then go pay their expenses yourself. Most of the US was saying don't go before the shooting started. Why should those guys pay for this?
Besides, the armed forces are the most commie institution there is. Everyone works for the collective, depends on the collective, gets fed by the collective, clothed by the collective. The word "comrade" comes from the forces.
If you really cared about these guys you could have done more to keep them out of harms way for no good reason. Why all the indignation now when it's too late?
- Joined
- May 17, 2005
- Messages
- 12,141
- Reaction score
- 2,629
redrumloa said:
I'm not the commie. YOU ARE. Expecting the state to look after invalids. Good grief.
Oooh, I've missed those debates!
To be honest, I can't see what the problem is here. From what I can gather from that article, it seems that the US administration wants to force insurance companies pay for healthcare for their customers. While it's a bit silly, to ask for private funding to take care of your own injured soliders, I can't see what the problem is from a solider's point of view.
To be honest, I can't see what the problem is here. From what I can gather from that article, it seems that the US administration wants to force insurance companies pay for healthcare for their customers. While it's a bit silly, to ask for private funding to take care of your own injured soliders, I can't see what the problem is from a solider's point of view.
I think you and I were the only two that actually read the article.
No one is billing the vets. Just the VA would be asking for reimbursement from the vet's private insurance, if they have any. If the vet does not have private insurance, the VA pays as normal. Vet's don't need private insurance. They're already covered through the VA.
Heck, the "alternative" the American Legion proposed? Have the VA ask for reimbursement from Medicare! First, how will that save any money? Both the VA and Medicare are funded by taxpayers... And second, how did Medicare have anything more to do with the vet's injuries than the private insurance companies did? err.....
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
whabang said:
To be honest, I can't see what the problem is here. From what I can gather from that article, it seems that the US administration wants to force insurance companies pay for healthcare for their customers. While it's a bit silly, to ask for private funding to take care of your own injured soliders, I can't see what the problem is from a solider's point of view.
--------------------------------
ilwrath replied
I think you and I were the only two that actually read the article.
No one is billing the vets.
--------------------------------
Please point out where it says that the vets won't have to pay.
Here is how he would have to pay.
Since most vets are married (above 70% ) they usually have private insurance to cover themselves when not on duty, and to cover the rest of his family for accidents or illness, just like he has private insurance in case of an auto accident.
A wounded vet could easily max out his private insurance for the whole family policy if he has a serious injury.
Private insurance has deductibles and co-pays.
A self employed vet with a disability would find private insurance almost impossible to buy at a reasonable price.
A disabled vet would find it very difficult, even more so than it already is, to find a civilian job if the employer has to foot the bill for more expensive insurance.
Why do you think employers pay women of child bearing age less than men? Answer; to cover the cost of maternity insurance and benefits.
So yeah, a serious injury could cost a vet out the wazoo if he had to depend on private insurance..
Bill Clinton tried to pull this same trick but was booted to the curb, just like this turd just got booted to the curb.
It is now a dead deal.
But never fear, go read what he is going to do to people on medicare.
To be honest, I can't see what the problem is here. From what I can gather from that article, it seems that the US administration wants to force insurance companies pay for healthcare for their customers. While it's a bit silly, to ask for private funding to take care of your own injured soliders, I can't see what the problem is from a solider's point of view.
--------------------------------
ilwrath replied
I think you and I were the only two that actually read the article.
No one is billing the vets.
--------------------------------
Please point out where it says that the vets won't have to pay.
Here is how he would have to pay.
Since most vets are married (above 70% ) they usually have private insurance to cover themselves when not on duty, and to cover the rest of his family for accidents or illness, just like he has private insurance in case of an auto accident.
A wounded vet could easily max out his private insurance for the whole family policy if he has a serious injury.
Private insurance has deductibles and co-pays.
A self employed vet with a disability would find private insurance almost impossible to buy at a reasonable price.
A disabled vet would find it very difficult, even more so than it already is, to find a civilian job if the employer has to foot the bill for more expensive insurance.
Why do you think employers pay women of child bearing age less than men? Answer; to cover the cost of maternity insurance and benefits.
So yeah, a serious injury could cost a vet out the wazoo if he had to depend on private insurance..
Bill Clinton tried to pull this same trick but was booted to the curb, just like this turd just got booted to the curb.
It is now a dead deal.
But never fear, go read what he is going to do to people on medicare.
If there are caps for insurance payouts (which would be quite insane), I assume the state would cover for any costs not covered. Is there any link to the actual proposal? So far, all I've read is that article, which is rather biased.
I'm not from the U.S so you need to enlighten me a bit. The commies in charge here forces us to put up with almost much free healthcare, so I'm not to familiar with your system.
Private health insurance is rather uncommon here, and it's usually compensating for the loss of income (public sick pay is only at 80% of your salary) and not for the treatment and medicines, which is free once you reach a yearly limit.
Oh, and paying young women less because they're more likely to get knocked up would result in massive fines aswell as a law suit here, so that argument really doesn't say anything either. :wink:
EDIT: For the record, I don't think there should be a discussion about this; you send your soliders to battle, then you should take care of them if they get injured. If the state chooses to pay for private insurance or if they pay for the actual treatment is irrelevant. No solider should have to suffer for serving his country, regardless if the war itself is a crime against humanity or not.
I'm not from the U.S so you need to enlighten me a bit. The commies in charge here forces us to put up with almost much free healthcare, so I'm not to familiar with your system.
Private health insurance is rather uncommon here, and it's usually compensating for the loss of income (public sick pay is only at 80% of your salary) and not for the treatment and medicines, which is free once you reach a yearly limit.
Oh, and paying young women less because they're more likely to get knocked up would result in massive fines aswell as a law suit here, so that argument really doesn't say anything either. :wink:
EDIT: For the record, I don't think there should be a discussion about this; you send your soliders to battle, then you should take care of them if they get injured. If the state chooses to pay for private insurance or if they pay for the actual treatment is irrelevant. No solider should have to suffer for serving his country, regardless if the war itself is a crime against humanity or not.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 614
- Reaction score
- 31
Whabang said:
"If there are caps for insurance payouts (which would be quite insane), I assume the state would cover for any costs not covered."
-----------------------------
Yes, the VA would pick up that cost, but the rest of the family would still be out of luck if the private policy is maxed out by the vet.
Again whabang:
"I'm not from the U.S so you need to enlighten me a bit. The commies in charge here forces us to put up with almost much free healthcare"
------------------------------
Yeah, I have just been reading about some of that great socialized health care.
And about how the courts make sure you get unlimited coverage.
Yes, you can buy insurance that has no limits on coverage, but like any premium product, the more you want, the more it costs. If you happen to have employer paid insurance, then you have 2 choices; accept the policy that the company offers, or buy your own at a price you can afford.
But Obama has a plan for that employer paid insurance too. He wants to treat any employer paid insurance as regular income. Meaning the employee will have to pay taxes on that benefit. So much for, "I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year".
And again I say, go read what Obama is going to do to people on medicare. Those are the people who are retired and have to take the government paid insurance known as medicare.
"If there are caps for insurance payouts (which would be quite insane), I assume the state would cover for any costs not covered."
-----------------------------
Yes, the VA would pick up that cost, but the rest of the family would still be out of luck if the private policy is maxed out by the vet.
Again whabang:
"I'm not from the U.S so you need to enlighten me a bit. The commies in charge here forces us to put up with almost much free healthcare"
------------------------------
Yeah, I have just been reading about some of that great socialized health care.
And about how the courts make sure you get unlimited coverage.
Yes, you can buy insurance that has no limits on coverage, but like any premium product, the more you want, the more it costs. If you happen to have employer paid insurance, then you have 2 choices; accept the policy that the company offers, or buy your own at a price you can afford.
But Obama has a plan for that employer paid insurance too. He wants to treat any employer paid insurance as regular income. Meaning the employee will have to pay taxes on that benefit. So much for, "I'm not going to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year".
And again I say, go read what Obama is going to do to people on medicare. Those are the people who are retired and have to take the government paid insurance known as medicare.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2005
- Messages
- 14,062
- Reaction score
- 2,044
Fade said:
:shocked:
Courts deciding when a person's life is not worse saving? Granted this looks like a tough case, but it is an example of where things will go. 80 years old? In declining health? Not worth providing medicine to anymore. That will be next.
Actually, I'm not from the U.K. either, and I'm quite sure that there will be scandals like that regardless of how the healthcare is financed. After all, insurance companies aren't known for being genereous, are they?
Swedish healthcare has a good reputation, and a few months ago, I got away with 300 SEK (36$) for two medical examinations, X-raying, surgery (including hot anaesthesia nurse and enough morphine to keep me flying for a week
), and a pair of crutches after I managed to get glass splinters in my foot. I don't even want to think about what the actual costs for everthing would be, so I'm going to settle with being satisfied with the way my tax money is spent.
I personally agree that all benefits should be taxed, but if your administration starts breaking their promises already, then the 7 o'clock news will be much more interesting in the future.
Politicians usually wait a year or two before they go public with their lies, and if Obama's going to start after three months, well... /me brings pop corn
That being said, I still haven't read the actual proposal regarding the original topic, and regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that no one should have to worry about being forced to pay for treatment of injuries or any illnesses incurred during military service.
Swedish healthcare has a good reputation, and a few months ago, I got away with 300 SEK (36$) for two medical examinations, X-raying, surgery (including hot anaesthesia nurse and enough morphine to keep me flying for a week
), and a pair of crutches after I managed to get glass splinters in my foot. I don't even want to think about what the actual costs for everthing would be, so I'm going to settle with being satisfied with the way my tax money is spent.I personally agree that all benefits should be taxed, but if your administration starts breaking their promises already, then the 7 o'clock news will be much more interesting in the future.
Politicians usually wait a year or two before they go public with their lies, and if Obama's going to start after three months, well... /me brings pop corn
That being said, I still haven't read the actual proposal regarding the original topic, and regardless, I wholeheartedly agree that no one should have to worry about being forced to pay for treatment of injuries or any illnesses incurred during military service.