[HM2Viking]

Fifty-one percent of the GOPers said universal healthcare coverage should be a right of every American, and 49 percent favored allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Those two issues continue to divide the party, though, with more than 40 percent opposed to both. Fabrizio emphasized that “the devil is in the details” on healthcare, and that providing a plan that pleases the entire 51 percent would be difficult.

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pol...007-06-28.html

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pol...007-06-28.html

Yeah, those are RINOs - Republican in Name Only.

That's like me saying that some Democrats support the war in Iraq. . .

I'm afraid that is one of those kinds of stats that Mark Twain talked about, the ones that come right after lies and darn lies. . .

NOW ask those RINOs if they would be willing to wait 6 months for an MRI, or otherwise cheapen down their own care, and just like Democrats, you'd see gov't restricted healthcare approval sink . . . When you talk about all the supposed platitudes and bury the true costs, you can make a poll say anything.

This country is not nearly ready for gov't restricted healthcare. We may be generous as a nation, but we aren't a nation that tolerates being walked over in the name of our generosity, or in any other name, for that matter.

Gov't restricted healthcare is uncompassionate healthcare. It is less fair. For everyone.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

Sorry but I can't understand how it is fair for people the work for decades only to be forced into bankrupcy because of cancer, heart disease, or an accident.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

Sorry but I can't understand how it is fair for people the work for decades only to be forced into bankrupcy because of cancer, heart disease, or an accident.

I can't either, however, I also don't see what that has to do with the gov't taking over, and ultimately, restricting healthcare for everybody.

See, YOU - you want to solve a problem. I applaud that.

But the whole gov't restricted healthcare idea: that is to advance an ideology of active gov't interventionism. healthcare is just a proxy in that fight.

Explain to me why I must give up the healthcare I have so that someone else can be covered? I know you don't subscribe to that but nevertheless, it is an essential tenet of gov't restricted healthcare: equality even if equality means a fair share in a dismal outcome.

I'm all for helping those that need it. I'm not for screwing up care for 85% in order to cover the 15% that already have access to EMTALA mandated care.

And I don't think the public could be sold on DMV style wait times for their care. I just don't see it happening. Harry and Louise will always be there, pointing out what GRH advocates don't want to be known about the true costs of such a program.

~faith,
Timothy.

[pickledpepperRN]

An employer, even a hospital, can close or sell to another corporation.

A laid off worker, including an RN can suffer an MI and be unable to work for a time. COBRA is expensive but those of us with savings would be OK for 18 months.
Then just before COBRA is expired that former worker may need open heart surgery. When the do the surgery a tumor is found.
The insurance company bills the person stating the tumor was a pre existing condition. No insurance company will sell a policy to that former worker. So the worker has to pay for chemotherapy until all savings is gone. A BMT takes the house. That former worker declares bankrupcy and has to move in with his daughter and her family.

I want guaranteed healthcare because the story is fact, not fiction.

I don't want any one else to lose everything they worked for all their life.
WE can help the sick while we are healthy so if we get sick healthy people can help us.

Is that so bad?
In Texan terms: "Everyone does better when everyone does better."

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I can't either, however, I also don't see what that has to do with the gov't taking over, and ultimately, restricting healthcare for everybody.

Timothy.

As I've said before government doesn't have to take over, just make the payments.

As far as restrictions. Who cares. I've said before I'm restricted by my insurance company that tells me which doctors to see, what tests I can have, what hospital to go to on and on an on. We already have restricted health care, but for the rich who can pay their bills above and beyond what the insurance companies say. They will still have that right and hospitals and doctors that will provide it to them (such as the Hilton style hospitals and spas we have springing up everywhere.)

Aren't we already discussing this in another thread? Do we need another? But since you're not tired of saying the same thing over, I'm not either.

[Tweety]

Originally Posted by spacenurse

An employer, even a hospital, can close or sell to another corporation.

A laid off worker, including an RN can suffer an MI and be unable to work for a time. COBRA is expensive but those of us with savings would be OK for 18 months.
Then just before COBRA is expired that former worker may need open heart surgery. When the do the surgery a tumor is found.
The insurance company bills the person stating the tumor was a pre existing condition. No insurance company will sell a policy to that former worker. So the worker has to pay for chemotherapy until all savings is gone. A BMT takes the house. That former worker declares bankrupcy and has to move in with his daughter and her family.

I want guaranteed healthcare because the story is fact, not fiction.

I don't want any one else to lose everything they worked for all their life.
WE can help the sick while we are healthy so if we get sick healthy people can help us.

Is that so bad?
In Texan terms: "Everyone does better when everyone does better."

Me too. The argument of "why should my health care suffer for the person above" doesn't fly by me. It's selfish.

I think that we can rise to the occasion and provide healthcare for the person above, while not compromising our own personal health care and all of us becoming government employees deliverying DMV style care.

[elkpark]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

Yeah, those are RINOs - Republican in Name Only.

Are you seriously proposing that more than half of the members of the GOP are "RINO"s??? What does that say about the GOP?

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by elkpark

Are you seriously proposing that more than half of the members of the GOP are "RINO"s??? What does that say about the GOP?

A party that is part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The demand from both sides of the aisle is there to fix the problem(s). Being a "do-nothing" is no longer an option. We can no longer afford ideological purity from either the left or the right but need a pragmatic reach across the aisle to solve the problem.

[DutchgirlRN]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/pol...007-06-28.html

So what good does this do? Talk is cheap!

The GOP (and I am one) has had 7 years to do something. Nothing was done...