President Obama Re-Elected - Page 545

On September 20 2012 05:52 antelope591 wrote:


Always funny when an American comments on Canadian health care with such authority when in fact they dont have a clue what theyre talking about.

On September 20 2012 05:27 SayGen wrote:


Yes, I had to pay 7000$ for braking my left arm.
now lets do some math.
23 years old. 300$ put aside since 18.
5 years=60Months 60X300= 18000
18000-7000= 1100 extra.
NOT INCLUDING the TAX FREE intrest i've gained while holding onto my HC account.

On September 20 2012 05:55 SayGen wrote:


Thanks for adding to the conversation in a meaningful way- I'll be happy to address your concerns.
I wish I could give you the example you asked for but 10,000 pages of Obamacare written in a legal-speak language the vast majoirty of Americans can not understand prevents me from doing this.

This also greatly concerned me:


So much for government transparency.

I do know, based off of GOP primary presidential debates that took place that there are procedures that arn't covered, including procedures that are determined 'optional' like a bullet stuck in your chest that can remain lodged there for the rest of your life. Last I checked, even if you could take a tetnis shot to prevent the soon-to-be rusted bullet from killing you, shouldn't I have some say if I want a bullet in my chest for the rest of my life? Why not let me tap into the 1100 dollars I got, plus a signature loan and have the procedure done.

I'm aware of how much 7000$ is. I gladly paid it. Remember 675$/month is more expensive than the 7000$ I spent on my broken arm. I ran the math in a previous post.

The middleclass is struggling, cause of MASSIVE debt (Thanks Obama) and increased taxiation (675+/month) extra.
Thanks for the well wishes, but I'm pretty sure i'm just screwed.
My God do I hate Romney (totally different reasons) but in this case he is the lesser of 2 evils.
Least he won't raise my taxes 675+, and give me a little more control back of my life.

On September 20 2012 06:05 Falling wrote:

Yeah you already posted that and people argued why that was a silly example. Don't just spam links with no commentary and think you're contributing to discussion.

On September 20 2012 05:55 SayGen wrote:


Thanks for adding to the conversation in a meaningful way- I'll be happy to address your concerns.
I wish I could give you the example you asked for but 10,000 pages of Obamacare written in a legal-speak language the vast majoirty of Americans can not understand prevents me from doing this.

This also greatly concerned me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV-05TLiiLU

So much for government transparency.

I do know, based off of GOP primary presidential debates that took place that there are procedures that arn't covered, including procedures that are determined 'optional' like a bullet stuck in your chest that can remain lodged there for the rest of your life. Last I checked, even if you could take a tetnis shot to prevent the soon-to-be rusted bullet from killing you, shouldn't I have some say if I want a bullet in my chest for the rest of my life? Why not let me tap into the 1100 dollars I got, plus a signature loan and have the procedure done.

I'm aware of how much 7000$ is. I gladly paid it. Remember 675$/month is more expensive than the 7000$ I spent on my broken arm. I ran the math in a previous post.

The middleclass is struggling, cause of MASSIVE debt (Thanks Obama) and increased taxiation (675+/month) extra.
Thanks for the well wishes, but I'm pretty sure i'm just screwed.
My God do I hate Romney (totally different reasons) but in this case he is the lesser of 2 evils.
Least he won't raise my taxes 675+, and give me a little more control back of my life.

On September 20 2012 06:05 Defacer wrote:


Your bullet situation is a bad example. I really skeptical of it as a premise, but I'll bite and explain why.

Healthcare in the US is still provided by private healthcare providers. So if you really want that bullet out, you can probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire. Meanwhile, your health insurance would likely cover any that is actually life-threatening and would cost way more than $1100.

And there is nothing saying, that under the system prior Obamacare, that insurers wouldn't have deny coverage for your comestic bullet surgery any way.

On September 20 2012 05:53 sevencck wrote:


The free market will charge whatever it can get away with to provide (possibly excellent) healthcare to those who can afford it. The free market will deny health insurance to those in need if it projects a loss. In fact, the free market would happily deny medical services to those it believes can't pay (in fact that's illegal, which is an important preexisting marketplace regulation per healthcare).

Mandated health insurance as it stands isn't likely the fully realized vision of American health care, but it's an excellent start. Healthcare (that is society's ability/willingness to care for it's sick/dying/injured), will no longer be guided by shareholders and their pursuit of the almighty dollar. Moral imperative should never be dicated by someone's vision of ecnomic necessity. The market can no longer deny health insurance to those in need. People in need will no longer mortgage their future to get the treatment they require. You must have medical coverage (frankly, this is especially beneficial for those short-sighted enough to believe they will never need it). This system allows the nation to cheaply provide medical services to everyone. Aren't you legally required to buy car insurance? How do you think that works?

In other words, what was before a failure on the part of the free market to speak to the medical needs of Americans has now been remedied by market regulation. The free market can't deny services if it projects a loss.

The free market also happily accepts govt. subsidies and tax writeoffs. Yes, taxes have always helped finance medicine generally. People already pay taxes to finance hospitals etc. But I guess those facilities are only there to help the rich?

Finally, senate democrats accepted 161 Republican amendments to the healthcare reform bill. How do you know you aren't really just complaining about one of those?

On September 20 2012 06:08 Gorsameth wrote:
The sad part is people like SayGen will only realize the error of there ways when they are confronted by a bill they cannot pay. When any of the thousands of afflictions that can happen to any of us at any time strike them and leave them dead/dying or penny less. And then they look up at the rest of the world and see that maybe, just maybe, they were wrong. except by now its to late.

Your government is saving you from your own stupidity. Be damn glad it does cause you sure arnt seeing it.

probably pay the extra fee to have it removed, as you so desire.

On September 20 2012 05:59 Elegance wrote:

that article doesn't mean shit. And I believe another poster addressed the motives of this guy going to the US for surgery. You think you know what its like up here? do you live here? Every Canadian poster here has said they loved the health care provided here. You know, COMMON FOLK. You think we give a shit about some millionaire getting surgery from one of the best heart surgeons?

On September 20 2012 06:11 SayGen wrote:


Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain.
You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition.
I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)

Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did.
In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up.
Can you choose to drive? Yes.
Can you choose to by UHC? No.
Thanks for that one.

As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)

On September 20 2012 06:11 SayGen wrote:


Great post, I do some a few quams. Allow me to explain.
You said HC will deny someone with a preexisting condition.
I have heard of this many times, and it makes sense. Why insure someone who won't be able to put in what they take out. I see nothing wrong with this. A society who accepts people who drain more than they add, never prosper in the long run. I realize the idea of "More taxes" is a great solution when you see it as someone elses money- but really the fact is, it will run out. (see nationdebtclock.org) Should we cut funding to research centers, and libs? Should we cut more from education to pay for HC? If you add drains to society we all suffer. We all pay. We pay with a less educated population. We pay in more taxes (in my case 675$ more). I only want people to carry their weight best they can. Those that fall and struggle should tap into a rainy day fund like I did when I broke my arm. Also there is charity, people give MILLIONS away (look at Bill Gates who has GIVEN BILLIONS). I'm not saying I want people to roll over and die, of course that's cruel. But we should be expected to give of ourselves before asking others for help. I thought until recently that was a universial belief. Forcing a tax hike htat massive on the American people during a recession is a BAD idea. (I can source numerious economist if you'd like)

Also you brought up car insurance. I'm glad you did.
In fact you just made my point for me, thanks for bringing that up.
Can you choose to drive? Yes.
Can you choose to by UHC? No.
Thanks for that one.

As for your final point, I wish I could know but again 10,000 pages of legal-speak isn't something the vast majority of Americans can read. (myself included)

On September 20 2012 06:10 farvacola wrote:
In other news, a nice little victory for the Obama administration has taken shape as Eric Holder has been vindicated in the "Fast and Furious" investigation, at least according to an internal DOJ report.



Source