# Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare



## Nighthawk62 (Nov 23, 2010)

*Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8[/ame]


----------



## blastoff (Nov 23, 2010)

Problems?  What problems?  If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.  

Oops...never mind...


----------



## Nighthawk62 (Nov 23, 2010)

blastoff said:


> Problems?  What problems?  If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.
> 
> Oops...never mind...



*I believe you are very mistaken. If we went with "Single Payer" like many Libtards want to do, the government would be the one and only company shoppe in town! ... What good would a "waiver" do you then?*


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Nov 23, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8


Gee....I guess what's required, would be....the *"conservative"*-option (i.e. taking-*his*-*word* for all this).....or, the *logical*-option (i.e. reference some *ACTUAL CANADIANS!!*)



*

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s47XSeX7qLc&feature=related[/ame]
*
*Tommy Douglas*

*
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p5Y_W49MCA[/ame]

(*BTW*....*THANKS!!* for the _opener_.






 )​


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 23, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Problems?  What problems?  If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.
> ...



Under a single-payer system, companies and unions wouldn't be responsible for providing health insurance to anyone. If the way we do things seems more complicated than single-payer, that's because it is. Substantially.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Nighthawk62 said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...



You know there are more ways to keep unions and companies from having to deal with insurance if that is really your goal right? 

I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue. 
Our government is going to have the same problem and probably worse that every other country trying to do this is having including the beloved France. Don't get me wrong, how it is practiced is actually pretty good. The issue is the French governmetn can't pay for it. They are going in debt because of it. And we should all know by now what happens if you do that for too long.


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

i'm with bern on this one.  the idea that the US could operate a quality single-payer is at once a solution to a problem we don't have and the destruction of a superior system of health care provision.

one of the major issues with a single payer system is the debasement of quality and coverage of care.  an even greater issue is the extreme cost obligation.  we're not talking about the NHS, we're talking about covering 6-7 times as many people in vastly larger jurisdiction in hundreds of times the hospitals.

there will not be a single payer system in the US.  it is too extreme a U-turn to be sprung on our health infrastructure and simply would never happen while we are a democracy.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
> Our government is going to have the same problem and probably worse that every other country trying to do this is having including the beloved France. Don't get me wrong, how it is practiced is actually pretty good. The issue is the French governmetn can't pay for it. They are going in debt because of it. And we should all know by now what happens if you do that for too long.



the problem that i see with conservative and libertarians saying the smaller government is the solution is simple. looks at what happened in the recent past under George W Bush.

When Clinton left office we had a substantially large government, a budget surplus, higher taxes and an economic boom. (FactCheck.org: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?) these are not made up ideas, this are actual facts. . no one will disagree with that. Bush took the conservative philosophy and applied it to the nation. he said he wanted to reduce the size of government but he actually oversaw the largest increase in the size of government in histiory, he lowered taxes on the wealthy and implemented massive deregulation of the banking system. this in combination with starting 2 wars in which we were spending $1B a day to fund erased all the surplus we had and drove the country into a recession. 

so when i heard conservative say less government less government is the answer, its extremely hard to believe anything they say. the evidence points to them not wanting less government, but actually wanting more, but only if it leads to more money going towards the wealthy and less regulation so they can make more profit. so in some ways government intervention needs to take place in the beginning to get things started. this doesnt mean that their power and influence cant be scaled back at a later date. but a lot of the conservative argument is the idea of trickle down economics. that being if we give more money to the upper class and business owners, eventually this money will trickle down to the middle and lower class. we as we have seen this doesnt happen. the income gap between the wealthy and the middle class has increased dramatically. and now the top 2% of society control 90% of the wealth. people are greedy by nature. we all want more for ourselves and whats best for our family. but when we liberals start wanting to look at solving a problem for the whole, we get labeled as socialists. 

someone else on one of these threads said it really well. when you think of socialist ideas dont attribute that mean communism. (it simply means to benefit society as a whole instead of only small parts of that society)


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> one of the major issues with a single payer system is the debasement of quality and coverage of care.  an even greater issue is the extreme cost obligation.  we're not talking about the NHS, we're talking about covering 6-7 times as many people in vastly larger jurisdiction in hundreds of times the hospitals.



The NHS is not the correct comparison here. The NHS is actually nationalized health care, where providers are essentially an arm of government. Single-payer, on the other hand, can mean as little as having a tax- (not premium-) financed system with a single set of procedure codes and a single claims form that private providers have to fill out. Of course there are implications to that--the single payer can use payment (as some payers do now, to a lesser effect) to impact delivery system organization, reward best practices, and overcome the provider leverage that overprices individual procedures. But those aren't bugs, those are one of the primary arguments in favor of such a system.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
> ...



I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative.  He sure didn't govern our country that way.


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > one of the major issues with a single payer system is the debasement of quality and coverage of care.  an even greater issue is the extreme cost obligation.  we're not talking about the NHS, we're talking about covering 6-7 times as many people in vastly larger jurisdiction in hundreds of times the hospitals.
> ...


i see what you're saying about the NHS 

with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world.  it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?

why debate a total pipe-dream i say.  can you support how such a system covering all americans is remotely feasible?  we'll talk about desirability if you can.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



very true, but he preached conservationism and then he skewed the lines and philosophy of being a conservative. in some ways he redefined what it meant. but do you see my point? we put a conservative in the white house and it caused more problems than it solved.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



I see your point.....but he was a CINO.  Conservative In Name Only.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



the only issue i see with conservatives today is that they have yet to offer up any substantial ideas to do what they propose. i.e. reduce spending and cut the deficit. (both of which i agree need to be done) for the last 2 years they have simply been the party of "No" and people bought into this ridiculous idea of being against everything instead of trying for compromise. that and i also fail to see conservative fighting for the middle and lower classes. examples - the bush tax cuts vs. unemployment benefits

conservative law makers want to extend the bush tax cuts on the top 2% of money earns. this is projected to add approx $700B to the deficit. but at the same time they preach cutting the deficit. they also do not want to extend the unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed. this says to me that those who are struggling to each and keep a roof over their head are less important than millionaires and billionaires. now i understand that simply empowering people to not work is not solution to our economic recovery. but i was part of the long term unemployed and it was only because of unemployment benefits that i survived. it still is extremely difficult to find a job. but i fail to see where giving more money to the top income earners at the expense of those at the bottom benefits the whole. 

when it comes to cutting spending and cutting the deficit i hear even fewer answer. it is a widely known fact that medicare, medicaid, social security, defense and interest on the debt make up approx 85% of the federal budget. that leaves 15% of the total budget left. even if we cut out that entire 15% we still dont make a dent in the deficit. so the cuts have to come from somewhere. but no one want to touch medicare, medicaid, social security or defense. its a cluster fuck in my mind. its the preach one thing to get elected and do another thing once in office. (now some liberals are guilty of this too)

so how does this rant relate to health care. well the law may not have been perfect in anyone eyes. but it is a start in the right direction in terms of getting something done. if we continued to do nothing as a lot of conservative suggest, the system would have gotten simply worse and more people would have been pushed out of the system putting eventually more pressure on the government. 

i think conservatives missed a huge opportunity here to try and compromise as opposed to just saying no to everything. there were many common ground ideas that could have been a good place to start. but they chose to be united in simply saying no.

i would much rather be part of a party whos is for doing "something" than doing nothing.


----------



## Greenbeard (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world.  it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?
> 
> why debate a total pipe-dream i say.  can you support how such a system covering all americans is remotely feasible?  we'll talk about desirability if you can.



I'm not sure exactly what you mean why you talk of plausibility and feasibility: political or practical implementation? As you pointed out we already have two very different single-payer models in place: one state-based and heavily reliant on the private sector, and one federally administered. Each has more beneficiaries than Canada has people. If it's a question of scalability, I don't think that's a fundamental obstacle. Certainly there are some basic questions of design that would have to be answered: would a single-payer system be federally administered (and thus act like an expanded version of Medicare) or should it be run by individual states (and act like a much better funded expansion of Medicaid)? Canada's single-payer system is administered at the provincial level, so in that sense it looks a bit more like Medicaid than (our) Medicare.

There are plenty of questions like that to consider; we haven't quite reached the point where's the been much legitimate public debate on the subject and I'll admit I haven't taken the time to really explore the options. But I think ideally if we transitioned to single-payer, that system would truly be new, free of the outcomes of various idiosyncratic constraints that have shaped the existing public programs over the past 45 years. It's questionable whether that's possible, though, because there's always an element of path dependence to these kinds of policy changes. It's more difficult to fundamentally replace a system that people have known all their lives than is it to build on parts of the existing system (particularly parts that virtually everyone expects to be covered by eventually). And that's why single-payer advocates seem to think in terms of transitioning Medicare to serve all citizens.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8



Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Nighthawk62 said:
> 
> 
> > *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> ...



 Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Nighthawk62 said:
> ...



how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken. 

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I'll take just one example with child mortality rate.    The US counts still births as part of the  child mortality rate where there are other countries don't count it.
I will give you one more with life expectancy rates.  There is a lot of things that come into play with this one.  Traffic accidents, Guns, life style, obesity, and our diverse culture of people.  The black man has a lower life expectancy than a white man, not because of different healthcare, but because they have a tendency for higher hypertention related deaths, and heart ailments.  This all comes into play no matter what type of healthcare we have.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



you can still take the overall average for the population and apply the argument here. we still rank lower than the rest of the world (on average) in the majority of these categories.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



How are you going to quantify that to prove your point?


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world. 

thats why its called an average.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



Okay, I accept what your premise is.  Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not   going to change with healthcare reform.


----------



## Common Sense (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



The only way it could is by mandating our life styles to change.....drastically.  More government?


----------



## Christopher (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Please read this study as an example of one of the reasons for our rankings, particularly for life expectancy.  I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported.  Here is a quote from the study:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers



> The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006; Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world.  it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?
> ...


either or, really.  i dont think that the largess could be burdened with such a concept which offers a promise notwithstanding the potential for conditions to change by the end of the century.  who'd have thought that life expectancies would increase 30 years and that the ratio of working to retired would alter as dramatically as it has since the SS obligation was pledged last century?  should we make the same mistakes of burdening government with another such obligation that narrows our capacity to change our path into the future?

what about the political end of it now that you mention it?  i think you've got a real issue on your hands in trying to pass a measure which would dramatically increase governments involvement in HC while it is already struggling with reversing its path toward insolvency.  the concept of the government withstanding the impact of the wars on the VHA and the impact of the baby-boomer's retirement on medicare is significant enough.  adding the additional burden of an expansion of single-payer obligations sounds like a guaranteed destruction of any fiscal turnaround.  voters will recognize that.  the companies which offer health insurance now have been put on their feet by the government for close to 40 years.  i dont think that a move to virtually eliminate them will withstand the sort of political pressure that greased the passage of the obamacare bill.

i find that approach to be the best with respect to sustainability and scalability.  it works with what we have in terms of infrastructure and public/private burden.  it offers a means-tested participation in government-administered healthcare recognizing that not everyone is looking for their own equivalent of medicare or medicaid when it comes to what they want or what they want to offer their employees.

there's something old-school and played out about the single payer approach.  not impressed by any proceeds which you've proposed might come from it.


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


i dont think it serves your argument to propose solutions out one end and be naive out the other.  america has healthfulness problems in serious ways.  this is independent of the solutions available to them from medical care.  would you contest the idea that america's poor are less healthy despite their access to free socialized care?  are you so dense and to presume that has something to do with ethnicity in the face of the lifestyle choices which dominate that focus group... the cigarettes and overconsumption of shitty foods... the reticence to exercise?

pointing to health stats in other countries is the first sign of a losing argument on this topic because healthcare and health outcomes are not connected beyond those levels present in all developed nations.  after there's an accessible medical infrastructure in place for emergency and natal care, the significance of coverage takes a backseat to lifestyles by and large.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Whether HCR improves health care or not is completely irrelevant to the main goals of HCR which were to provide everyone with coverage, and prevent the price of care from rising too fast. HCR improves health care only in the sense that people who couldn't afford health care before will now receive health care, which is "better health care" than the "no health care" they were previously receiving.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Christopher said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Life expectancy is not the only measure we do poorly on. We pay more than anyone else. We pay 50% more than the nation with the 2nd highest per capita expense.

The idea that we do so poorly in so many ways because of factors beyond our health care system defies credibility. While a health care system cant cure every condition, a competent one does not fail to respond to numerous areas of of poor performance.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> Common Sense said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future 

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know


----------



## Christopher (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



As I said, it is only one of the reasons for our low ranking.  Where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?  I havent seen it.

What I do know is what is driving up our costs, based upon an analysis by CBO I provided in another thread.  Basically, new technology development is by far the greatest reason for increases in spending; other reasons included increases in personal income, and more access to health care spending through third party systems (Medicare and Medicaid).  Basically, we spend more because we can and this increase in spending results in increases in development of new technologies, which America leads by far in money spent on development.
Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...



i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well.  it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out.  plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people.  it is not an education system.  im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle.  altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge.  healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



If all you had said was "it is only one of the reasons", I would not disagree, But you went further than that. You said *". I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported."*

And increases in technology do not explain why routine procedures cost hundreds of dollars while similar procedures cost far less in other nations, nor do increases in personal income (particularly when the premiums increase several times faster than the minor iincrease in income does) and more access bring per capita costs down

Furthermore, increases in spending do not necesarily lead to development of new technology. Increased spending on providing immunizations to poor children does not lead to the development of expensive new technology. Increased spending on developing expensive new technology is what causes the development of expensive new technologies.

Basically, you're full of hot air. You want to argue that our health care system is a minor factor in health outcomes, but you can't point to what the major factor(s) is/are. You want to hide the fact that your position is baseless nonsense with static about things that have little to no influence on the cost of care or health outcomes.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Just get the government to implement mandates to change our life styles.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Translation: Wingnuts don't like to admit they were wrong, so they try to change the subject


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



no, dummy.  not the obvious answer.  not an answer i'd acknowledge.  healthcare is not a primary source of education on diet and exercise.  is this what you are proposing that our healthcare system should be?  are you stating that the lifestyles in other more healthful countries are those which were taught them in hospitals?  how is obesity converse to the proliferation of medical coverage in the US?  who's got the absurd notion now? 

people know damn well that they are disgusting when they are.  they see me breaking a sweat to keep in shape and characterize the media as portraying unrealistic images of people who are narrower than they are, they are aware that the differences between fitness and obesity are not magical.  notwithstanding, they claim that healthy food choices are nasty rabbit food.  this is culture not stupidity.

have you finished reconciling your statement about the inadequacy of medicaid with the inadequacy of single payer care?  in light of success in that challenge do you still maintain some need to pursue single payer care for all in an effort to paradoxically improve health outcomes?


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Wow, you've really gone off the deep end. I think it's hilarious the way you argue that the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health. Of course, it's so inane you won't come right out and say it. That would be too honest for you

So instead you have to put words in my mouth about people being educated in hospitals and other nonsense.

And which of the many voices in your head told you I said anything about reconciling medicaid and single payer? If wingnuts didnt make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

I'd ask you to quote where I said such a thing, but I know that wingnuts never back up their absurdly dishonest claims. They just post a bunch of childish insults


----------



## antagon (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



similarly, maybe you could pin me down saying that "the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health". 

_i've_ asked you to make some sense through reconciling your statement that medicaid is inadequate, and the discussion of this thread whereby socialized healthcare like medicaid is being vetted for its efficacy.  look at the title of the thread against the posture of your argument.  what can i say?

in your earlier argument that quality of healthcare drives quality of outcomes, you've conceded that lifestyle is important.  you insisted that lifestyle education is the outcome-facilitator in quality of healthcare to persist in a link between studies which show outcomes in the US are inferior to, say, european outcomes.  challenged to come out and say whether you thought that the outcomes in europe were driven by healthcare-facilitated lifestyle education, you have gone ad hominem troll status to deflect the ways your stupid argument is imperiled.  noted.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

antagon said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I already stated that you're not honest enough to come right out and say it, but you make your hostility to the idea of the health care system playing a greater role in educating the public very clear by getting hysterical when I mention the idea. Why else would you mischaracterize my position as extreme as wanting to make people get their health information from hospitals?

So now that I've supported my statement, why don't you do the same and show me the quote?

And again, I said nothing about comparing medicaid to single payer, and I still see no reason to do so because medicaid is not a single payer system. I have no idea why you think there is a need to reconcile anything wrt medicaid and single payer.

*" challenged to come out and say whether you thought that the outcomes in europe were driven by healthcare-facilitated lifestyle education, you have gone ad hominem troll status to deflect the ways your stupid argument is imperiled. "*

What are you hallucinating again? You never asked me that question. This is just another attempt to distract with a straw man argument I never made. It's exactly as I said above about the way you get hysterical about the idea that the health care system can do more to educate people. Now you're making up some drivel about how "outcomes in europe were drivien by"..blah, blah, blah

It's very simple wingnut - Health care systems can and have influenced people to change their lifestyles in a healthy manner through education and the health care system should do more of this education wherever possible.

Now try and get hysterical about that


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


Not changing the subject, Sangha.  It WILL take the government mandates to change lifestyles.  Hell, their doing it now, for the love of God.
Translation:  I'm such a Kool-Aid drinking winger that I can't admit he's right.


----------



## sangha (Nov 24, 2010)

Meister said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



In wingnut world, the fact that health care systems have convinced millions of people to change their lifestyles without mandates means that the only way to change peoples' lifestyles is by using mandates


----------



## Meister (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Even though our government (not healthcare) is and been making laws to change lifestyles.  Yes, you are in denial and can't admit the truth even if it slaps you in the face.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 24, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.

From the CBO:


> First, expanded third-party coverage fosters greater spending at any point by insulating consumers from part of the cost of medical services, thus encourag-ing them to consume more services than they otherwise would. That increased demand for services, in turn, contributes to rising health care costs, which further increase consumers demand for third-party coverage.



This supports my statement about the effects of increased spending. Perhaps you need to read the study by the CBO.

Perhaps if you have some credible evidence which shows that our health care system is to blame, you could provide that.  Also, I already asked this but where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries?


----------



## sangha (Nov 25, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



*What I said was that our unhealthy lifestyles are "at least partially" to blame.*

Wingnut liars always try to deny saying what they said when caught in a lie. They think one lie will fix another. This wingnut wants to pretend he didn't say *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

And here's another lie:

You said that increased spending on health care results in the development of expensive new technologies. The quote you posted says nothing like that. It says "First, *expanded third-party coverage *fosters greater spending at any point "


----------



## Birth-of-Cool (Nov 25, 2010)

socialize it! &#8211; no more private hands and special interest involved &#8211; give it to the people


----------



## Christopher (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I have not denied anything.  Please show me where I did.  I just re-quoted myself.

Im not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating.  I agree with the UPenns analysis.  Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account.  Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.

Interesting that you would say Im lying when in fact you just misquoted me.  You added the word expensive to my words.  Actually, you did it twice.

In addition, you took only the first part of two sentences I quoted.  I call that taking what I provided out of context.  If the quote I provided was not explicit enough, here you go from the same study, under the section Changes in Third-Party Payment:


> Broader access to health insurance coverage *[this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage]*, as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall.



Another quote, also under Changes in Third-Party Payment, talking about the results of expanding Medicare and Medicaid:


> That expansion *[the expansion of third-party payment systems]*, in turn, could have had a larger effect on spending by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



This lying wingnut wants to run away from his own words, so he lies and denies that I've already posted his quote. Here it is again

*"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

Of course, the wingnut won't defend his own words. Instead, he'll deny saying them

*I&#8217;m not denying that I said that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating.  I agree with the UPenn&#8217;s analysis.  Our rating would not be as low if we took our higher than average unhealthy lifestyles into account.  Please provide credible evidence which disproves the study if you disagree.*

Once again, the lying wingnut makes a claim and REFUSES to defend it and presents a straw man instead. This time, he repeats the claim that there are OTHER FACTORS, like lifestyle which also impact health outcomes. No one has disputed this, but the wingnut wants to pretend that is the issue because he knows he can't defend his claim that

*"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

The fact that there are OTHER FACTORS in no way supports the wingnuts claim that

*"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

ANd the wingnut also has to lie about me misquoting him. He lies and says I added the word "expensive" to his quote. A quick read shows that my use of the word was not part of my quoting him. The wingnut wants to make up all sorts of false charges in the hopes I'll forget his nonsense claim that

*"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

And the quote you just added does NOT support your claim that increased health care spending leads to the development of new technologies It actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING. It talks about *"Broader access to health insurance coverage "*, not more spending

Wingnuts are so illiterate that they think "a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to higher spending overall." means "increased spending leads to the development of new technology"

The statement you made was  *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

Let's see you defend it


----------



## Christopher (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Perhaps I need to explain it one more time.  You seem to fail in comprehension, although I think it is intentional on your part.  I have not denied anything Ive said, nor have  I run away from what Ive said.  The fact remains that our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were taken into account.  Our health care system is not to blame for our LOW [note the emphasis on low] rating.  I also said that our unhealthy lifestyles are at least partially to blame for the low rating, indicating that it is not the only reason for our rating.  I have defended my claims with credible studies.  Even after asking you several times to provide any credible evidence, you still have nothing.
Here is what the study I provided says:


> We find that, by standards of OECD countries, the US does well in terms of screening for cancer, survival rates from cancer, survival rates after heart attacks and strokes, and medication of individuals with high levels of blood pressure or cholesterol. We consider in greater depth mortality from prostate cancer and breast cancer, diseases for which effective methods of identification and treatment have been developed and where behavioral factors do not play a dominant role. We show that the US has had significantly faster declines in mortality from these two diseases than comparison countries. We conclude that the low longevity ranking of the United States is not likely to be a result of a poorly functioning health care system
> 
> measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system  the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individuals health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols



The CBO study talks about broader access to health insurance coverage which *[and this is the part you left out which I quoted]* leads  to higher spending overall.  Your attempt at taking things out of context I think is dishonest on your part.

Who are you responding to by the way?  In most of your post you seem to not even be addressing me directly, in referring to me as the wingnut.  This, by the way is quite childish.  Maybe you are expecting me to respond childishly as well?  Perhaps I should respond sticks and stones ..oh never mind.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




Once again, you can post as much evidence as you like about OTHER FACTORS, but you won't be doing anything to defend your statement.

*"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

You seem to think that the existence of OTHER FACTORS proves that the health care has no blame for our low rating. You just keep repeating it and repeating it, but you will never explain why the existence of OTHER FACTORS is any way relevant to whether our health care system has any blame for our low rating

So contrary to your claims that you have posted studies to support your inane claim, the only thing you've done is prove that there are OTHER FACTORS, a straw man which no one is disputing.

WRT your 2nd point, you also said that increased spening on health care leads to the development of new technologies which cost more than current treatments. The study you quoted does not support your claims.

In both cases, you can't seem to provide any support for your claims that are relevent. In the first case, you fetishize the OTHER FACTORS though they do nothing to support your claim that the HC system is not blame for our low rating. In the 2nd, the reports you cite do not say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies which lead to increases in hc costs

WHen will you post something that actually does support your claims, instead of posting irrelevancies and declaring they prove your inane claims?


----------



## Christopher (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



If you do not understand what the CBO was saying, I can't help any further.  You actually claimed before that it said nothing about increased spending.  I proved you wrong.  You obviously won't read it for yourself.

Here it is simple: The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period.  Taking this into account would make our ranking higher, period.  The study also stated that "measures of population health such as life expectancy do not depend only on what transpires within the health care system  the array of hospitals, doctors and other health care professionals, the techniques they employ, and the institutions that govern access to and utilization of them. Such measures also depend upon a variety of personal behaviors that affect an individuals health such as diet, exercise, smoking, and compliance with medical protocols"

Please enlighten me as to how our health care system is to blame for our low ranking, with some credible evidence of course.


----------



## sangha (Nov 26, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



I understand what the CBO reports says. It says that our health care system drives costs up. The high cost of health care is a major reason for our poor rating.

In wingnut world, that means  *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

Your next point is also irrelevant

* The UPenn study concluded that our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking, period. *

So what? This discussion is not about longevity ranking, period. Once again, you've brought up a straw man irrelevancy and tried to pass it off as responsive

You said *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

NOT *our health care system is not at fault for our low longevity ranking*

You do understand the difference between "low rating" and "low longetivity ranking"??

Don't you?

You said *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"* When will you post some facts that support your claim?


----------



## Christopher (Nov 26, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs.  We have greater outcomes and better response because of these increases in costs; those are the main area we excel in the ranking.  You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense.  Those were not considered in the ranking either. 
You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending.  I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs.  Clearly it is because we are spending a lot on the development and implementation of new technologies.  I have also seen some evidence that the US is shouldering the burden in development of new drugs.  Other countries see the benefit, can approve drugs and new technologies more quickly.  If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system.

Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating.  Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant.  Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems control.  That is my point.

There are other factors, as I said before such as how statistics are reported, which are also outside the control of our health care system (hence, our health care system is not to blame.

Where would we stand if we took out all the factors which are outside of our health care systems control?  I say based on the evidence, we would be much higher.

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence.


----------



## Cuyo (Nov 26, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Problems?  What problems?  If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.
> ...



Single payer =/ socialized medicine.  Socialized medicine implies government ownership of healthcare facilities.  Single payer is just a government insurance plan similar to Medicare that applies to everyone.  It can (and often does) coincide with a private insurance market.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



*"No, what it says is there are factors which increase spending which in turn increases costs. "*

No, it does not say that. If it did, there would be quotes around the words when you posted them. Those are YOUR words, not the CBO's

What the CBO says is that increased spending in OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM leads to increases in costs. IOW, they are blaming our health care system for the high costs. In your wingnut delusions, that means  *"our health care system is not to blame for our low rating"*

*"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense"*

The CBO report does not say that. In fact, there are studies which show that increased ispending do not always lead to better outcomes. For example, increased screening for breast cancer has not always resulted in higher rates of detection and prevention.

*"You spend more, you increase outcomes and get a better response; makes sense.  Those were not considered in the ranking either. "*

Youre making stuff up. The study did not take spending into account, but it DID take outcomes into account. In fact, the study was mostly about outcomes. And when you rankoutcomes, spending SHOULD NOT be a consideration. When you rank outcomes, you rank OUTCOMES, not spending.

*"You were clearly shown as taking the CBO out of context and claiming it mentioned nothing about increases in spending."*

I never said that the CBO said NOTHING about increases in spending. I specifically noted the CBO blamed increased costs on our health care system. Please don't make up stuff about what I said.

*" I only provided the CBO study to show what is increasing costs.  "*

No, you claimed that increasing spending results in developing new technology which increases costs. The CBO does not support your claim that increased spending is increasing costs. That's why you can't quote where the CBO report says that.

*"If anything, the FDA is part of the problem, not the health care system."*

Umm, the FDA is part of the health care system.

*"Of course I understand the difference between low rating and low longevity rating.  Longevity ranking is a main factor in the ranking, so the UPenn study is not irrelevant"*

You are lying. Longetivity is NOT the main factor in the ranking. Please stop making stuff up.

*"Our rating would be higher if unhealthy lifestyles were considered as a factor outside of health care systems control.  That is my point."*

And you just proved my point. You can't support your position with facts, so you have to pretend that the health care system doesn't influence people's lifestyles.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Still nothing to support your position and once again you are misrepresenting what I said in many cases.  For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.  Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending.  I will show you your quote in context if you would like.  Please learn to read what I have posted and stop taking what I said and twisting it or taking it out of context.  Then we can move on.

My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low.  Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries.  Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking.  I'm not saying the system does not have problems.  The biggest issue every system is facing is that growth and the associated costs are unsustainable.

Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc.  These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors.  Other factors, as I mentioned, include how countries measure premature births.  Some will not count births by a certain number of weeks, while the US does.  Overall the rankings do not correctly reflect our health care system when compared to other health care systems.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



So I have nothing to support the claim that the health care system can get people to change their lifestyles?

I guess you missed the campaign against tobacco, which has resulted in lower smoking rates for children? I guess you missed the way the hog farmers changed the way they raised pigs to meet the publics' desire for low fat meat?

*"For instance, I did not say that longevity is THE main factor; I said it was A main factor.'*

And you have no support for that claim either. Longevity was a factor. There was nothing that made it a MAIN factor. You are just making stuff up again.

*"Also, yes you did say that the CBO mentioned nothing about spending.  "*

And yet, once again, you can't post the quote where I said this. You say you CAN post, yet you DON'T actually post it.

I said the international study that ranked the US  so low did not take spending into accoutn. Please stop lying about what I said.

*"My point still stands: if we were to take out all of the factors that are beyond the control of our health care system, our ranking would not be so low.  Our ranking would be more equal to other top-ranked countries.  Hence, our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking. "*

It is a tautology to say that if you take out the negatives, the result will be more positive. This is a straw man that no one is disagreeing with.

However, the study which ranked the health care of nations all over the world, did not take out the factors that are beyond the control of the health system in the US because they did not do that for ANY nation. We are not the only nation where lifestyles impact health. That is true all over the world

So, of course we would do better if they took out all the factors beyond OUR control. The same is true for every other nation. So if they did the same for every other country, there's no reason to think we would not end up in the same spot.

But worst of all, even if what you said was true, it still wouldn't lead to the conclusion that "our health care system is not at fault for our low ranking"

If we took out all those factors you mentioned, there is still no evidence that our ranking would improve ENOUGH to move us significantly higher in the rankings.

*"Our overall health outcomes are measured by longevity, infant mortality, etc.  These are very strongly influenced by lifestyle factors.  "*

This is true for EVERY nation. You have presented absolutely NO EVIDENCE that our ranking would change if it eliminated all those factors.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries.  It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it.  I shouldn&#8217;t have to do your homework for you.

With that said, I&#8217;m going to stop giving you a shovel.  You just keep digging yourself further into a hole.  I will however, give you where you lied once since you seem to have forgotten.

What I quoted from the CBO (refer to post #48):


> Broader access to health insurance coverage [this is in reference to third party systems such as Medicare and Medicaid which increase coverage], as well as the greater generosity of health insurance plans on average, allows larger financial returns to investment in new medical technologies because both factors contribute to demand for new medical services. Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care *spending* should hasten the development of new technologies, which can lead to *higher spending overall*...
> 
> ...That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], in turn, could have had a larger effect on *spending* by hastening the adoption of cost-increasing new technologies.



Your lie about what the CBO said (refer to post #49):


> the quote you just added...actually says NOTHING about increased SPENDING.



Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending.  I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit.  The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies.

Good luck with your dishonesty.  I will no longer be responding to you.  You will not even take the time to ready the studies I provided, yet say you read them and understand them.  You will not provide any credible evidence to support your claims either.  I have been patient enough.


----------



## sangha (Nov 27, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



*"There is plenty of evidence that the US has a higher level of unhealthy lifestyles when compared with other countries.  It is in the UPenn study if you had actually read it.  I shouldnt have to do your homework for you"*

And yet, you can't quote any of this evidence.

*"Note that both quotes I added talked about higher or increased spending.  I have highlighted the words spending for your benefit.  The second quote I provided from the CBO actually talked about cost-increasing new technologies."*

Umm, neither of those quotes talk about increased spending. They talk about *Broader access to health insurance coverage * and *That expansion [the expansion of third-party payment systems], *

"Broader access" and "expansion of 3rd party payment systems" are not "higher or increased spending"

IOW, neither of those quotes say that increased spending on health care leads to the development of new technologies. They say *"Accordingly, a falling share of out-of-pocket health care spending should hasten the development of new technologies"*

They are saying that LESS SPENDING leads to the development of new technologies. This is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you claim.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 29, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I dont know now whether you are intentionally misinterpreting or you just are too focused on what you believe to pay attention, so I decided to respond.

I already quoted from the UPenn study, refer to post #26.  Here part of it is again:


> One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009).



This is how much our life expectancy ranking would increase just taking into account deaths attributed to smoking.  Here is another quote from the study which I had already provided:


> Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).



So, what would be our ranking once we factor in our more adverse obesity?  How about you just read the study.

Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less out-of-pocket spending.  That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid.  They spend less out-of-pocket; that does not mean there is less spending occurring.  When people have insurance (in this case government insurance) paying the bills, people spend more.
If you had read the CBO study, you would know it mentions specifically the spending increases as a result of the expansion of the third-party systems (Medicare and Medicaid).

There is no question that expansion of third-party systems has increased spending.
So, the increased spending as a result of decreasing out-of-pocket spending hastened the development of new technologies and lead to higher spending.  The last quote also says that expanding the third-party systems could have had a larger effect on spending than what the CBO had estimated in the study because it allowed for the adoption of new technologies.  You obviously dont know what the CBO study says and it is apparent to me that you have not read it.

If you want to honestly discuss these studies, you need to actually read them first.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations. 

2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"

3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more

4) *:Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less &#8220;out-of-pocket&#8221; spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"*

Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> 1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.



This makes it invalid how exactly?



sangha said:


> 2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"



No the only thing we can assume here is that you are unable to grasp the difference between a change in what YOU spend (out-of-pocket) on health care and change in what government spends on health care.



sangha said:


> 3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more



The CBO is not the WHO. They wouldn't even comment on the overall health of our country. However, it should be intuitively obvious to most the most casual observer that we, as a nation, have rather poor health habits. Try finding half a dozen countries with higher obesity rates than ours for starters.

The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved. As if we are suppossed to believe that lower life expectency is somehow an indictiment of our health care system. The FACT is low life expectency is an indictment of the health choices each and every one of us make day in and day out. It is undeniable fact that if you factored out things like obesity and smoking, the life expectency of this country would go up. And the FACT is those two things are out of the control of our health care system. They are simply treating YOUR bad choices. They are not the cause of them.



sangha said:


> 4) *:Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less out-of-pocket spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"*
> 
> Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means



He's a liar because you don't understand the difference between nothing and less?


----------



## Christopher (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> 1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.



The majority of the countries ranked in the top for life expectancy are OECD countries.  It is a completely valid comparison.



sangha said:


> 2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"



You really like that word wingnut.  Sorry, just an observation.

If you would actually read in context what the CBO study says, you would get it.  I think your biggest problem is that you do not want to accept it.

Read the CBO study; it proves that expansion of third-party payment systems has increased spending.  There is no question.  Yes, it says out-of-pocket spending decreased.  That is where the Medicare and Medicaid came into play.  When Medicare and Medicaid are spending the money, peoples out-of-pocket spending does decrease.  It creates a situation where people are more apt to "spend" money on their health when it is not coming out of their own pocket.



sangha said:


> 3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more



No, you did not ask me to provide a quote from the CBO study regarding US lifestyles being unhealthier.  We were discussing the UPenn study which shows that US lifestyles are unhealthier.  That study was backed up by other studies, just read it.  I provided the quotes, and refuse to do your homework for you.

No, it is not just that Americans smoke more; the study also shows that we have more adverse obesity.  There are a number of health issues which the study talks about.  Again, just read it.



sangha said:


> 4) *:Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less out-of-pocket spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"*
> 
> Liar. I'm not on Medicare or Medicaid and I have "out of pocket" costs. You don't even understand what out-of-pocket means



Of course you spend money out of pocket since you are not on Medicare or Medicaid.  Im not saying any different.  If you were on a Medicare or Medicaid you would spend less out of pocket.  The CBO confirmed that third-party payment systems increased spending overall because they decreased what people who were on these systems had to pay out of pocket.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.
> ...



You're kidding, right?

Do you really not understand how a study that includes only 20 OECD nations cannot possibly show that the US lifestyles are more less healthy than all the other nations, including the third world nations?



Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"
> ...



The quote says nothing about what the govt spends on health care. If wingnuts didn't lie, they'd have nothing to say



Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more
> ...



Once again, the wingnuts prove unable to support their inane lies with any evidence.



Bern80 said:


> The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved. As if we are suppossed to believe that lower life expectency is somehow an indictiment of our health care system. The FACT is low life expectency is an indictment of the health choices each and every one of us make day in and day out. It is undeniable fact that if you factored out things like obesity and smoking, the life expectency of this country would go up. And the FACT is those two things are out of the control of our health care system. They are simply treating YOUR bad choices. They are not the cause of them.



No, the point is the lies wingnuts like you tell, but I understand why you would want to forget about those. For example:

I haven't focused on life expectancy. That would be your wingnut friend, Chistopher. He was the one who is obsessed with life extancy. But keep dishonestly pretending that I said anything about getting the govt involved in health care. Your pitifully transparent attempt to distract from wingnut lies is very entertaining





Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 4) *:Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less &#8220;out-of-pocket&#8221; spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"*
> ...



No, he's a liar because he said out of pocket costs are "what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid", but thanks for demonstrating that Chris isn't the only wingnut who has to lie


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 1) Your quote about smoking only applies to OECD nations.
> ...



Once again, the wingnut proves he is obsessed with life expectancy. I guess he believed his own lie about life expectancy being a "MAIN FACTOR", a lie he has yet to defend1



sangha said:


> 2) The CBO says "falling" out of pocket spending results in the development of new technology. I guess a wingnut like you thinks "falling spending" imeans "increased spending"



You really like that word wingnut.  Sorry, just an observation.

If you would actually read in context what the CBO study says, you would get it.  I think your biggest problem is that you do not want to accept it.

Read the CBO study; it proves that expansion of third-party payment systems has increased spending.  There is no question.  Yes, it says out-of-pocket spending decreased.  That is where the Medicare and Medicaid came into play.  When Medicare and Medicaid are spending the money, peoples out-of-pocket spending does decrease.  It creates a situation where people are more apt to "spend" money on their health when it is not coming out of their own pocket.[/quote]

Thank you

Finally the wingnut admits that the quote does not support his claim that increased spending results in technology development. He just admitted that only increased spending OF A CERTAIN KIND, results in the development of technology.

And of course, since that "certain kind of spending" (out of pocket spending by people who are covered by Medicare and Medicaid) occurs because of how our health care system works, that means (in wingnut world) that the health care system has nothing to do with our low ranking 



Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 3) I asked you to post a quote from the CBO study that supports your claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than the lifestyles of other nations. All you have is that Americans smoke more
> ...



I meant the UPenn study. My bad.

HOwever, the UPenn does not show that US lifestyles are unhealtier than any other nations. It only compared the US to 20 OECD nations. Once again, you claim a study supports you, but when posting the quote, it's revealed that the study says something else

You claimed

1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
3) Increased spending causes the development of new technology

The truth

1) YOu haven't posted anything to support this
2) The study you cite doesn't compare the US to every other nation
3) The study you cite says only that increased OUT OF POCKET spending on by people who are on Medicare and Medicaid AND whose coverage is adminstered by a THIRD PARTY (ie non governmental insurance provider)



Christopher said:


> No, it is not just that Americans smoke more; the study also shows that we have more adverse obesity.  There are a number of health issues which the study talks about.  Again, just read it.



And no one is disputing that americans smoke more and are more obese. This is a straw man

Let me know when you're going to defend you're claim that US lifestyles are unhealthier than every other nation



Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > 4) *:Regarding the quotes from the CBO, it is talking about less out-of-pocket spending. That is what happens when people go on Medicare or Medicaid"*
> ...



You defined "out of pocket spending" as something that only Medicare and Medicaid patients do.

And I have insurance. It pays %100 after co-pays. So I have out of pocket medical expenses (almost everyone does) and when I go on Medicare, my out of pocket costs will go up.

And those third party payers are part of our health care system. If they are driving up costs, then the blame lies with out health care system, which uses third party payers. 

So basically, you have yet to provide any support for your arguments. You couldn't even post a proper definition of "out of pocket"


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What SPECIFICALLY am I lieing about? Obesity rates? I did a simple yahoo search. I have yet to find any statistics that show America in any position other than #1 in terms of obesity rates. Wanna call me a liar again?


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Here

*"The point trying to be made here is that advocates like you have of government run health care like to cite our life expectency as evidence that government needs to get involved."*

I have never used life expectancy to argue anything, never mind argue that it is a reason for the govt to get invovled in health care. The poster who is using life expectancy to make a point is the wingnut, Christopher

Yes, you're a liar


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Then you best check with some of your lib friends because they like to use it an awful lot.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You lied and said I did it. 

And another wingnut lies, and when he gets pwned, he can't admit he was wrong.

And now he's telling another lie

I don't suppose you have a link where some of my lib freinds are using life expectancy as you claim?


----------



## Christopher (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> You claimed
> 
> 1) The US healthcare system has nothing to do with our low ranking
> 2) US lifestyles are unhealtheir than any other nation
> ...



I have come to the conclusion that you are beyond hope and for me to even continue discussing with you is pointless.  I know you are not dumb.  I just think your partisan/ideological blinders are too strongly connected to you.


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Sure I can. I falsly atrributed the life expectency argument to you.

It is somewhat confusing however that you want evidence for something you claim to care little about.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed
> ...



I accept your surrender


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



As I suspected, you can't back up your lies with some quotes or links


----------



## Christopher (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Yep, I just can't compete with your intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



Says the man with no relevant quotes

care to explain how out of pocket means "that what happens when you go on medicare or medicaid"?

I thought not


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What is your point exactly? If you're going to say it ain't so every time someone won't cow tow to your demands while turning a blind eye to common sense, you're basically just intentionally shoving your head in the sand.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



My point is that your point is a wingnut lie.


----------



## Christopher (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Thanks for proving my point about your intellectual dishonesty.


----------



## sangha (Nov 30, 2010)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



As I said "I thought not" 

Isn't this where you falsely claim (for about the third time) that you're done with me?


----------



## Bern80 (Nov 30, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



What? The point that people use relatively low life expectency of americans as evidence we need some form of UHC? Careful sangha. You're going to have an awfully difficult time proving a negative.


----------



## Countryman13 (Dec 1, 2010)

I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst.  My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school).  It costs her more to do so.  So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system.  She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment.  If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months.  The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that.  Capitalism works.  Why fix something that isn't broken?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2010)

Countryman13 said:


> I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst.  My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school).  It costs her more to do so.  So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system.  She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment.  If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months.  The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that.  Capitalism works.  Why fix something that isn't broken?



Correct. There are going to be horror stories with every system. If it's not having the insurance coverage for a treatment, it will be waiting too long for treatment. 

IF what we all want is for as many people to have access to affordable health care as possible (and I think we can at least all agree on that) there are two components to that; affordability and access. Those two things are not the same and fixing one does not fix the other. In fact 'fixing' one in simple economic terms more likely than not makes the other component worse. Greater affordability will create less access to resources without an increase in those resources. Greater access to resources will lead to higher prices that someone will have to pay for.


----------



## sangha (Dec 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Wingnut thinks I need to prove him wrong. All I need to do is show you can't prove you're right (which you still haven't done)


----------



## sangha (Dec 1, 2010)

Countryman13 said:


> I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst.  My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school).  It costs her more to do so.  So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system.  She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment.  If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months.  The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that.  Capitalism works.  Why fix something that isn't broken?



Well, if the anonymous girlfriend of an anonymous poster on the internet says so, then it must be true


----------



## sangha (Dec 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Countryman13 said:
> 
> 
> > I can say that I have seen government run healthcare at it's worst.  My girlfriend, who is German born and raised and still lives in the Motherland, has opted to go with the privatized insurance offered by her employer which is a gymnasium (high school).  It costs her more to do so.  So I asked her why she chose the private system over the government run system.  She told me that in any case that she needs to see a physician, having the Private Insurance ensures that she will be seen at the time of her appointment.  If she had government insurance she would be forced to wait until the physician "found the time" and could very well wait for weeks, possibly even months.  The truth is that there is no perfect system and no amount of lobbying or earmarking is going to change that.  Capitalism works.  Why fix something that isn't broken?
> ...



Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"

And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return


----------



## Meister (Dec 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Countryman13 said:
> ...



  Drink some more Kool-Aid, sonny.


----------



## Meister (Dec 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Which you can't prove him wrong


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Right about what? Can't and won't are too different things. I WON'T go sifting through my board log to find posts from people that have made the argument that low life exptency is an indictment of our health care system. You CAN'T prove that no one has ever made such a claim. You should have learned this in high school debate.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"
> 
> And most people realize that increased access lowers costs. Nations with UHC pay far less than we do and they get more and better health care in return



You still are looking at cost from only one perspective. The consumers. And how do you know they pay less? How do you know that between their out of pocket expenses and taxes that fund the system, that they pay less than we do? 

Let's assume they do for a second. The fact that the end user PAYS less does not mean the whole system COSTS less. This is what countries like France are learnng the hard way. Doctors still need to be paid and facilities and resources still need to be paid for. Governments have learned their is an option c when it comes to paying for things; 'well we can't raise taxes to pay for this without having a mutiny and we can't lower doctors salaries enough without another mutiny so I guess we'll just borrow for it, no really were good for it, trust us'. That is called unsustainability which I've explained is the logistical issue with most UHC systems.


----------



## sangha (Dec 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wingnuts have all sort of horror "stories"
> ...



*"You still are looking at cost from only one perspective. The consumers"*

Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.

*"how do you know they pay less?"*

I can read

*"How do you know that between their out of pocket expenses and taxes that fund the system, that they pay less than we do? "*

Because they added up ALL of the costs. Is this too much for your little wingnut mind to handle?

*"The fact that the end user PAYS less does not mean the whole system COSTS less. This is what countries like France are learnng the hard way. "*

Umm, the costs in France are at least 33% lower (per capita) that in the US 

IOW, the whole system in the US costs more than the whole system in France

*"Doctors still need to be paid and facilities and resources still need to be paid for. Governments have learned their is an option c when it comes to paying for things; 'well we can't raise taxes to pay for this without having a mutiny and we can't lower doctors salaries enough without another mutiny so I guess we'll just borrow for it, no really were good for it, trust us'. That is called unsustainability which I've explained is the logistical issue with most UHC systems."*

I guess you're so deluded you think the French don't pay for the healthcare they receive. The money for it just materializes out of thin air 

In the real world, France has a sustainable UHC system that provides care that is better and less expensive than the care given in the US


----------



## healthphreak (Dec 1, 2010)

I don't understand why health insurance costs so much right now.  How did we get to the system we currently have and not to single-payer or universal health care anyway?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2010)

sangha said:


> Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.
> I can read
> 
> Because they added up ALL of the costs. Is this too much for your little wingnut mind to handle?
> ...



All of these statements prove you STILL aren't listening. I'm not arguing over what it costs per capita. Of course it costs more here. That makes perfect sense considering how poorly most americans take care of their health. 



sangha said:


> I guess you're so deluded you think the French don't pay for the healthcare they receive. The money for it just materializes out of thin air
> 
> In the real world, France has a sustainable UHC system that provides care that is better and less expensive than the care given in the US



No. They don't.......
Health Care Lessons From France : NPR



> Last year, the national health system ran nearly $9 billion in debt. Although it is a smaller deficit than in previous years, it forced the government of President Nicolas Sarkozy to start charging patients more for some drugs, ambulance costs and other services. Debates over cost-cutting have become an expected part of the national dialogue on health care.



And THAT is my point. Not the accessibility, not cost per capita. The point is who pays for it if you shift the cost off of the consumer? France's health care system cost x dollars last year and they came up 9 billion short. That is the very DEFINTION of not sustainable.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 1, 2010)

healthphreak said:


> I don't understand why health insurance costs so much right now.  How did we get to the system we currently have and not to single-payer or universal health care anyway?



What I don't understand are posts like this. Why don't you just substitute the word single payer for monopoly. When have those ever been good for the consumer?

What is it you don't understand about the cost of premiums? I don't ask why. I ask why not? We have probably the most self induced health problems of any industrial nation. That is contributing to the cost. Government heavily regulates what insurance companies must cover, leading to less choice and less competition which increases costs. The concept of insurance in of itself is going to make health care cost more because you've essentially added a middleman between you and care providers. Just a few reasons.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Another lie. The studies include all costs, including the money spent by govt.
> ...



Huh?

The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.

And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.



Where did I EVER say the consumer pays nothing? I claimed quite specifically that the cost burden is shifted from the consumer to someone else. Stop with the intellectual dishonesty.



sangha said:


> And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"



The only thing happening here is that your another lib who is intellectually dishonest. Lieing about the definiton of unsustainable? An unsustainable program is one that you can not pay for. This is math, not politics. Man up and make a bet with me that France's health care program will run a 9 billion dollar surplus next year. And last year wasn't the first year it ran at a defecit either. It has run at a deficit for many years and is only projected to get worse. 

http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/

And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%. 



> http://www.consumersunion.org/health/0122exec.htm
> 
> Over 20 percent of families headed by people 55 to 64 and more than half of the families headed by people over 65 pay over 10 percent of their income on health care, when out-of-pocket costs and premiums they pay directly are included.
> 
> ...



Now you may be too dense to get this but what is spent per capita is different than the percentage of income one pays for health care. Now I ask are you really going to care that less money is spent on you per capita than people in some other country if at the end of the day you have to spend a greater percentage of your income on health care than they do?


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The quote you just posted makes clear that the costs all end up on the consumer. Your claim that the consumer (ie taxpayer) isn't paying is just another of your lies.
> ...



When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty



Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > And if you think a deficit is a sign of non-sustainabilty, the you must think that every company that has gone over budget just once is "unsustainable". But of course you don't think that. You're just lying again, this time about the definiton of "unsustainable"
> ...



*" An unsustainable program is one that you can not pay for."*

Another lie. France pays for its health care, and your definition is a made up one



Bern80 said:


> BigGovHealth | Case Study: France
> 
> And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S. I would guestimate (based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.
> 
> ...


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

BTW, you lied about France paying a higher % of GDP on health care. We pay 12.9%. The French pay 9.4%


http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/35/1913396.pdf


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty



I see the problem. You have a fundamental reading disability. Somehow you thing shifting cost burden equals NO burden. Not true. When are you going to see that all of your rebuttals rely on faulty assumptions? Since when does a shft in burden HAVE to mean all or none. Why can't go from 50-50 to 30-70 or something like that? That's what I mean

A





sangha said:


> Another lie. France pays for its health care, and your definition is a made up one



I guess you don't understand the concept of a defecit either. Really? I'm lieing that France's health care system consistantly runs at a deficit. I bet you have reall credit card problems too. Because you probably think that when you swipe that peice of plastic through the machine YOU paid for it. Newsflash you idiot. YOU didn't pay for it. Mastercard paid for it and now you owe them instead, WITH interest. Of course France still pays for it.........by BORROWING. The providers still get their money. The government just owes someone else. When you borrow money you still have to pay it back at some point. What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back? 

Unbelievable that the baics of financial transactions need to be explained to you like you're a fucking 10 year old.



sangha said:


> Health care is cheaper in France, but you keep playing with statistics until you find something you can use.



By what defintion of cheaper? Cheaper for who?




sangha said:


> Yes.



Then you are the only liar here my friend. Thanks again for showing you are void of any intellectual integrity.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> BTW, you lied about France paying a higher % of GDP on health care. We pay 12.9%. The French pay 9.4%
> 
> 
> http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/35/1913396.pdf



When did I ever bring up GDP? I said percentage of income. 

YOU LIED right their you fucking moron. If you're too stupid to understand the difference in statsitics this really is a pointless conversation.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > When you said the costs get shifted off the consumer. In the end, the consumer pays. That "someone else" you speak of is also a consumer, so why don't you stop with the intellectual dishonesty
> ...



You lied about the French spending a higher % of GDP on health care than the US does.

I'm not surprised you want to discuss something other than you lies



> What happens if you keep running a deficit/borrowing money without paying it back?



If you pay each years deficit the following year, NOTHING HAPPENS.

If the economy grows faster than the debt accrues, YOUR COSTS GO DOWN as a % of GDP


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Again I never brought up the GDP of France, so no, I did not. Seriously if you're most constructive to retort is to shout liar every time without actually refuting anything said, you may want to come up with a different hobby.




sangha said:


> If you pay each years deficit the following year, NOTHING HAPPENS.



Sure, if you have someone who's willing to keep extending credit to you. I think you would have to admit that just treading water year in and year out can't really be called good financial mangement. Imagine if your household was run that way. Would you argue that you are sustaining your lifestyle, that you are living within your means if you spent more than you took in and just paid for it later? Don't you get that things cost MORE doing it that way. You 'buy' a $1000 television except you put it on the card, and tell yourself it's okay I'll pay that $1000 dollars next year. 

I guess we have to go over the basics again with you. People don't borrow other people money without knowing they will get it back and they don't do it without a return on their investment, meaning there is usally interest attached to it. So what do you really pay for that $1000 TV after 12 months of 10% interest (pretty low for your avg. credit card)? Just take a guess. We'll see here how well you grasp the concept of compounding interest. Now apply your logic to France. If their budget shortfall in 2009 was x. How much will they have to pay on in 2010 to pay back what they borrowed?


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



*"Again I never brought up the GDP of France, so no, I did not. Seriously if you're most constructive to retort is to shout liar every time without actually refuting anything said, you may want to come up with a different hobby."*

You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.

You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm

And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.
> 
> You made up statistics about health spending as a % of income, so I'll just ask for a link to support your lie and watch as you squirm



It came from the first link I posted. Again reading and reading comprehension are not you're strong suits. Not that it will make much difference when you do read it. I have a pretty good prediction as to what the your laughable response will be.



sangha said:


> And wrt borrowing each year, every single major corp in the US does this. I guess they're unsustainable also



Dude it's getting really tiring having to explain basic concepts and difference to you, but here we go.....

Yes corporations do borrow over the course of year. The company I work for does it actually. The reason our company and many companies do that is because they need capital to build. This could be for a variety of reasons. The business is just starting up or it is seasonal in nature and revenue to cover the costs of building don't come it at the same time expenses need to be paid. So the company budgets for what it thinks it needs to cover the capital expenses and asks a bank to borrow them the money. The bank borrows them that money under the assumption that the company will make that money back in revenues and more to cover the loan. Assuming the company makes the money back in revenue to pay the loan, this is a perfectly sustainable business cycle. Borrow money to build product, sell product, use revenue from sale to pay back loan. Pretty simple

So, why do I consider that sustainable and the French borrowing unsustainable? Start at the beginning of the process; budgeting. IF this is the sustainable system you claim and the French government intended to sustain I would think they would have budgeted as well. They should have been able to collect data telling them under the current structure what government portion of the tab would be for health care for the year, ballpark. They get some number. THEN they look at where the revenue will come from to pay for that. They look at tax revenue and come up with another number. This number was apparently 9 billion short of what their tab was going to be. So they borrowed 9 billion to pay the difference. On to next year. They budget for what health care will cost them, they figure out what they will bring in revenue and unless something drastic changes like they are able to cut expenses significantly or somehow raise taxes to cover it without a mutiny there isn't any reason to expect they aren't going to come up short in revenue again the next year (and to interject a little reality it is indeed expected that health care costs will rise in France). 

OH!. .....BY THE WAY......don't forget you still owe 9 BILLION from last year too. Serioulsy how simple a picture do you need painted to see why what businesses do year in and year out is sustainable borrowing and what the French government is doing is not?


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You're right. I didn't catch your lie the first time.
> ...



I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



And I see the arguments you have to stoop to when basic facts and concepts are put in your face. I said the figure I quoted is in the first link I posted. Or is it % of GDP you still want (which I never gave in the first place). Make up your mind. Does the link not work? Or are you one of those immature debaters who like to claim it doesn't count or isn't real if it isn't spoon fed to you?

P.S. I wouldn't make anymore comments about who is ingoring the substance of whose posts.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I see you still can't back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their *income *on health care


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




And I see you are STILL reduced to being juvenile and aren't able to respond to my posts. You can't refute that corporate sustainable borrowing is different than the sustainability of government borrowing. 

Now if your issue is that you can't see that 12-15% is less than 21%, you're right. We are at a bit of an impass.


----------



## sangha (Dec 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I understand why you'd rather discuss the debt issue before we fully explore your lie about the % of income the US pays. After all, you've been claiming your #'s come from some report that you linked to. The truth is, even you admitted you made the # up.



> And another interesting statistic you glossed over. The french pay almost 21% on avg. of their income for health care. In the U.S.* I would guestimate *(based on the numbers below that it is maybe around 12%-15%.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 2, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No. I said I guestimated it the American percentage. It really is funny that you're the one who wants to nit pick about this considering what a fool it makes you look like. My guesstimation of 12-15% comes from the sections of the link that I did actually quote a couple pages back that essentially said x million number of americans spend at least 10% of their income on health care. Since the words at least were used it is reasonable to assume that the avg. is somewhat greater than that, but twice as great? Probably not. I await your next lame ass objection.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You "guesstimated"? IOW, you made up the #

I rest my case


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Do you have an a reasonable argument that would indicate that 10% is lower than what it should be? Would it be more than France's 21% when all factors and total population are figured? Serioulsy, do you want to have an actual adult conversation or not?

The other intersting part about your tunnel vision on this particular issue is that you think if you're right it actually means something. Let's assume on avg. Americans do spend a greater percentage of their income on health care than France. What exactly do you believe that is evidence of in regards to our health care system? You do understand their are at least two scenarios where one country could spend a greater % of income on health care than another that has NOTHING to do with the health care system itself right?

And you still haven't addressed the sustainability issue. I can only surmise that you have no reasonable rebuttal to my explanation between the differnence in private sector borrowing and government borrowing.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s

Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s
> 
> Let me know when you have facts. I have no interest in your guestimates or your assumptions.



No your just being silly. I POSTED EVIDENCE. READ THE FUCKING LINKS. THE NUMBERS I CITED ARE THERE. I even cut and pasted some of them from the articles a couple of pages back. Look at how pathetic you are. You've really reduced yourself to lieing and saying I didn't do what God and everyone can see I did do. If your gonna line about what someone did at the very least you might want to make sure that there isn't out in the open evidence to the contrary for everyone to see.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, my reasonable argument is that there is NO EVIDENCE for your US #'s
> ...



Are you denying you made up the # for the US?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Yes I am. 10% is cited in the link I posted.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Liar. The link refers to 10% OR GREATER

Is 100% greater than, or less than , 10%?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Is it reasonable to assume that when a paper cites 'at least' whatever, that the the actual number will be significntly higher than that?


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You're the one making assumptions, not me.

I'm not a wingnut, so I prefer facts. Too bad you're short on those


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Then for the love of God stop being such a immature juvenile twit and pose a reasonable number. If you think the real number isn't even close to 10%, make your case. I certainly accept that 10% is not what the actual number is, it just isn't reasonable, I don't think, to assume it is twice that. Which is what it would have to be, to be greater than France. Being a fucking adult in this converstation for once and let's find out what the number actually is.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Without facts, there are no reasonable #'s.

Why wouldn't you assume it's 20%? or 30%? Or 59%?

In the last year of my mothers' life, her health care cost 1000% of her annual income.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Because common sense says when you cite 'at least 10%' the acutal number is going to be fairly close to that. If it isn't it renders the 10% that was cited meaningless. If it isn't even close why cite it in the first place if it's that misleading? Like I said before, a little common sense needs to enter the conversation at some point. And I'm even willing to entertain it could be more than France. Again, I just don't know what that proves about anything. I ask again, what would that be an idictment of, if we do spend a greater percentage of our income on health care than they do?


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



"Common sense"? Is that what you use when you have no facts?

If you want me to talk about % of income, then post the facts, not your "guestimates"


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Why is it so important to you? Why are you incapable of having an objective, adult discussion? I no longer see why this concept is relevent to the overall debate.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Why is what so important to me? The facts?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Yes. Say we get those numbers and say for what you think is the benefit of your argument, the French spend on avg. 20% of their income on health care and say America spends 30%. What's your argument? That it shows that government run health care puts more money in people's pockets?


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So you're actually asking me why the facts are important?

No wonder you lie so often.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No. I'm curious as to why you think this particular fact is important. You've been hammering away on it for 3 pages or so now. You obviously feel that it does something for your argument. I'm curious to what that is. 

And while you think you are so smug, lest not forget you do the same as you accuse me of and side step what you can not refute.


----------



## sangha (Dec 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Another lie

It was YOU who brought up the issue of % of income spent on health care, and it was you who continue (even now) to try to discuss your guestimates, assumptions, and speculation on the matter. The moment you drop it, it will no longer be discussed in this thread.

So when are you going to back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care than americans do?

My guestimate = Never


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

sangha said:


> Another lie



For a guy who throws that word around a lot one would have thought you knew what it meant.



sangha said:


> It was YOU who brought up the issue of % of income spent on health care, and it was you who continue (even now) to try to discuss your guestimates, assumptions, and speculation on the matter. The moment you drop it, it will no longer be discussed in this thread.
> 
> So when are you going to back up your claim that the french spend a greater % of their income on health care than americans do?
> 
> My guestimate = Never



You are a colossal hypocrite sangha. I don't get how people with so little integrity look themselves in the mirror each day. You demand of me what you will not do yourself. You tell me it will be dropped when I stop discussing it and then ask me to keep discussing it? you truly are a joke. I am trying to have the adult conversation here. All you are obviously interested in is fucking juvenile game of gotcha.

I am going to stick with my 12-15% estimate based on what I read until you can come up with a rationale explanation as to why that isn't accurate and why the number is higher than the one cited for France. Period. If YOU can not answer those questions _I_ will consider that aspect of the discussion dropped and YOU can perhaps find your integrity and answer the questions I have asked of YOU.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 3, 2010)

The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4[/ame]


----------



## Revere (Dec 3, 2010)

Who cares what socalists like WHO think of the US?


----------



## Revere (Dec 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4



More of your subterranean IQ, shit head. Americans lifespans are shortened by high accident rates, and the US saves babies other countries don't even try to.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 3, 2010)

Old Rocks said:


> The problems with socialized medicine is that it does not create millionaires like Rick Scott. Instead, it just covers all the citizens of a nation, and results in them having longer life spans, with much lower infant mortality than we do in the states.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVgOl3cETb4



This stupid report AGAIN? That report has been debunked almost as much as AGW Old Fool.


----------



## sangha (Dec 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Another lie
> ...



Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 4, 2010)

sangha said:


> Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.



I repeat, when you can show that figure isn't even close to right I am more than willing to listen. Really I am. I would rather deal with accurate numbers as well. I'm not being dishonest here. That is my estimation based on the links I posted. Or if you want to drop that part of it we can drop it. 

But don't pull this bullshit anymore about what I have to prove and ONLY I have to prove. I say the U.S. spends less than France on health care as percentage of income, you contest that we spend more than them. But only I have to prove that I'm right and you don't? Again when you can muster some integrity we can get back to it, otherwise I think it best to drop it.

You also claimed that French system, despite it's 9 billion dollar deficit and expected to increase, was sustainable by comparing to private sector borrowing. I explained why this is a false comparison. You are awfully loud about wanting exact figures on other things, but interestingly quiet about the actual sustainability of a system you think is so great.


----------



## sangha (Dec 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you will stick to your guestimate. It's not like you have any desire to stick to the facts. You're inability to recognize your intellectual dishonesty is proven by your sticking to made up # because it can't be proven wrong. Most people realize that facts are things you can prove are right.
> ...



In wingnut world, something is right if someone else can't prove it wrong

I am God. Now let's see you prove me wrong, or admit that I am God.

And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.


----------



## sangha (Dec 4, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



It looks like a wingnut "got religion"


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 4, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8


Yea we're fucked and getting more fucked by the day


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 4, 2010)

sangha said:


> And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.



For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect. I can only tell you what I found. And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care. Now I ask you, if that is all the information we have what do you believe it is reasonable to estimate the avg. americans percent of income spent on health care is? 

What I don't get about about a lot of discussions on this board is why people like you are incapable of an objective conversation. That's all I'm waiting for. If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives. Again all you seem interested in is this immature game of gotcha.

P.S. You have yet to refute the argument that the French system is unsustainable.


----------



## sangha (Dec 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > And please don't lie. I never said the french spend less of their income on health care. I merely asked you to prove your dishonest claim.
> ...



*"For the last time. I am willing to objectively discuss alternative numbers when some objective evidence shows they are significnalty incorrect"*

I am willing to let you worship me as a God until you post objective evidence that I am not God.



> And article after article claims essentially that a percentage of this demographic or that demographic pays more than 10% of their income on health care.



Translation - after Bern accuses me of obsessing over this issue, Bern hypocritically and obsessively tries to get me to talk about his "guestimates"



> If I'm just way off base on my estimate I am more than happy to objectively discuss alternatives



If I am way off base about my being God, I am more than happy to objectively discuss any objective evidence you have to the contrary.

But until you can provide evidence that I am not God, we should assume that I am God.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 5, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Was gonna write a longer post, but there is no point in repeating myself. You remain a hypocrite and someone who isn't really interested in whether socialized medicine is beneficial or not. The last few pages of this thread will clearly show all you are interested is some juvenile game. 

I'll make it easy for you. YOU make up the numbers. For the sake of argument I'll assume they're right. Maybe then we can have a constructive discussion as to percent of income spent on health care actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Or maybe you can show some integrity and answer MY questions.


----------



## jeffrockit (Dec 5, 2010)

Common Sense said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Common Sense said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 6, 2010)

Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.

Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.

http://www.visualeconomics.com/how-the-average-us-consumer-spends-their-paycheck/

May we move on now?


----------



## sangha (Dec 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I'll make it easy for you. YOU make up the numbers. For the sake of argument I'll assume they're right. Maybe then we can have a constructive discussion as to percent of income spent on health care actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Or maybe you can show some integrity and answer MY questions.



Making up #s is what wingnuts like you do. If you want someone to make up #'s, ask one of your  wingnuts.


----------



## sangha (Dec 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.
> 
> Sangha, it appears the 'guestimate' I made earlier may have been a touch on the high side.
> 
> ...



Nope. Those #'s don't make sense

*
The average consumer spends $2,853 on healthcare each year*

Health insurance alone cost more than that. It looks like they're only counting out of pocket expenses.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 6, 2010)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you to Greenbeard for the finding this very interesting info.
> ...



The figure does include health insurance actually. 

The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Health Expenditures

If you click on the PDF for 136 you will see the $2,853 broken down further. One of the components being health insurance at $1545 

You are correct about what premiums cost being more than $2,853. For the same year (2007) the avg cost of plans was $4,479 for a single and $12,108 for family. The thing you are forgetting is that most people aren't paying for all of their plan. Some people aren't paying any of it and others are having a good chunk of it paid for by someone else like their employer. When that is factored in dept. of labor is saying of the 4,479 that a plan costs the consumer is only paying 1,545.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2009-09-15-insurance-costs_N.htm


----------



## sangha (Dec 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.

I do not believe you will be able to find #'s to support any credible % of income. It seems that those # are not tracked. If you would like to compare the US with France, how about we compare the # of "medical bankruptcies" (personal bankruptcies caused by excessive medical costs) between the two? Or the # of uninsured? Infant mortality? Pre-natal care?


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 7, 2010)

sangha said:


> I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.




If you follow the link you will see a list of tables. One of them is numbered 136. Click on it. You will see three categories comprise the $2,853. One of them is labeled health insurance which comprises $1,545 of the $2,853, which the DoL says is the avg. percent of income spent on health care. So if you think the nunber us low, what did they leave out? According to the table the $2,853 comprises 3 categories; Health Insurance, Medical Services, and Drugs & Medical Supplies. Do you have a legitimate reason to believe the DoL's numbers are off?

What I think happened here Sangha is you didn't understand who percent of income spent on health care represents. It included EVERYONE, including those that didn't spend a dime on healthcare for one reason or another. Think about what is comprised in that number and what you have to figure out to get to it. First, you need to know what the avg. U.S. income is, which I believe the DoL pegged at about $64k for 2007. Then we have to figure out what everyone spent on health care in a year and divide it by the entire population. You divide that number by the avg. income and you have the avg. percent of income spent on health care in the U.S. You're right, counting the people that paid nothing for health care is going to bring that number down. But then our stastitc isnt' really the avg. percent of income spent on health care in a year, is it?

In short there is nothing 'low' or off about the DoL numbers unless you can point out what was left out of their numbers.  



sangha said:


> I do not believe you will be able to find #'s to support any credible % of income. It seems that those # are not tracked. If you would like to compare the US with France, how about we compare the # of "medical bankruptcies" (personal bankruptcies caused by excessive medical costs) between the two? Or the # of uninsured? Infant mortality? Pre-natal care?



Again there is nothing non-credible about the numbers. $2,853 was the avg. amount of money spent on health care in 2007 per family. As a percent of income it was roughly 5.7% given an avg. income of about $64,000. The problem is you didn't fully grasp what that number was going to represent. It represents EVERYONE and it represents people who didn't pay anything and it doesn't discriminate between whether those are people that didn't pay because they couldn't or because they chose not to. This is why I said so many pages ago how amsued I was about how bent out of shape about this specific statistic you are. It does NOTHING for your argument. Given all of the variables it's an almost meaningless figure in the context of the benefits of socialized medicine. The only thing we can draw from it is what YOU drew from it. That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.

Moving on to other statistics. No. Since we finished this one I think it only fair you finally address the sustainabiltiy argument.


----------



## shintao (Dec 7, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8



Lot wrong with your advertisement. Canada has a smaller taxing population than California.  Comparing Canada to America is like comparing the Jolly Green Giant to a pesky nat....quite laughable!!! Canada pays a smaller percentage of taxes for health care, (See chart below), and yet has Americans lined up to the 80% cheaper pharmacy drugs outlets. Not to mention, ALL Canadians are covered, and America has millions uninsured!! LOL!

American waiting times for treatments vary just like other countries do. Try and get a transplant in America, and compare it to China. American hospitals throw live birth patients out the doors within hours of the birth, and that is the partial reason for so many baby deaths. Hey we can do it faster and see you sooner Mr. Jones, just as long as you die sooner and have less grand children survive the natural birthing process.


----------



## shintao (Dec 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.



Your hypothese is incorrect as the chart shows. Most countries taxed for medical care pay a smaller percentage of their countries GDP, than America does where you allow corporations to gouge you.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 7, 2010)

shintao said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That invariably the percent of income spent on health care is going to go UP for a country that chooses to pay for health care through taxation.
> ...



Iis the percent of income the same thing as percent of GDP? My hypotheses isn't wrong. I'm not comparing one country to another I am comparing what happens to the percent of income spent on health care for A country if it were to switch from a private system like ours to a more socilized one funded by tax dollars. In which case that number almost certainly must go up.


----------



## sangha (Dec 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I do not know what "the PDF for 136" means. And I didn't say the # wasn't broken down. I'm saying I don't believe it. Even if I accepted your explanation about the employer paying the premium (which I don't. Most people pay more than $125/mo) I suspect the # is low because so many people have no insurance, so they pay nothing, whereas in France, everyone has insurance, bringing the average up.
> ...



At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough

However, what the study leaves out is the institutionalized and most servicemembers. I don't remember your link to the #'s for France, so I don't know if it did include those. If it did, it would not be a fair comparison

on edit: A link that you posted says that *" The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."*

Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273

It also says *"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "*

If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?

Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 8, 2010)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8



The problem with socialized medicine is that it costs half as much per citizen, covers everybody, and leads to far better results in longevity, health, and infant mortality. And fails to make billions for Health Insurance Companys. The latter consideration is far more important than the health of the American Citizen. Just ask any Conservative.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 8, 2010)

sangha said:


> At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough
> 
> However, what the study leaves out is the institutionalized and most servicemembers. I don't remember your link to the #'s for France, so I don't know if it did include those. If it did, it would not be a fair comparison



The  DoL data does not leave those people out. You keep forgetting what the number represents. It is not an avg. of how much money is spent ON a person. It is how much the a person spent themselevs. Do you understand the difference? Maybe that institutionalized person cost $50,000 to treat that year. But if we are coming up with an avg. out of a data set of what the individual actially spends in a year on health care and that institutionalized person didn't end up paying any of the $50,000 it cost to treat them, then in the data set compiled to get the avg. percent of income spent on health care, that person is going to be a ZERO. 




sangha said:


> on edit: A link that you posted says that *" The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."*
> 
> Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?



Again the $2853 is not an NPR number. That is the statistic according the U.S. Department of Labor. Secondly.....of course they're going to be different. Why do you seemingly not yet understand the difference betweeen money spent per capita and percent of income spent. The latter is ALWAYS going to be less than the former. $6,400 is the avg. spent per person on health care in the U.S. It is NOT the avg. of what A person spent on health care ($2,853). 

Look at this way. Those two numbers are avgs. and what the $6400 is the avg. yearly health care cost per person. Think of it as one year long doctor's bill. Instead of paying as you go, at the end of the year you get a bill for all of your medical expenses for the year. That is what the $6400 is. NOW, are you personally going to be on the hook for the entire $6400? No. your insurance is going to cover most of it. What comes out of your pocket is only going to be a fraction of that. When you write the check you aren't going to be writing it for $6400, you're only going to be writing it for what the insurance company didn't cover. THAT is what the $2853 represents. Understand?




sangha said:


> It also says *"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "*
> 
> If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?
> 
> Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?



It depends on how you read it. I take the statement to read that if someone has a gross income of $100,000 a year (for the sake of using easy numbers), $21,000 OF THEIR GROSS goes to taxes for health care. The employer kicks in another $10,500 on top of that.

If interpreted as you did the statement _should_ read:

"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 10.5% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up another 10.5%."


----------



## sangha (Dec 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > At least you're now posting credible information from a credible source. Took you long enough
> ...



Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again



> You keep forgetting what the number represents. It is not an avg. of how much money is spent ON a person. It is how much the a person spent themselevs. Do you understand the difference? Maybe that institutionalized person cost $50,000 to treat that year. But if we are coming up with an avg. out of a data set of what the individual actially spends in a year on health care and that institutionalized person didn't end up paying any of the $50,000 it cost to treat them, then in the data set compiled to get the avg. percent of income spent on health care, that person is going to be a ZERO.



It leaves out all the money taxpayers pay to pay for the healthcare. All it shows it that the French govt pays a lesser share of health care directly, so the only way you can make the #'s seem favorable for the US is to leave out huge portions of the population 




sangha said:


> on edit: A link that you posted says that *" The United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. In 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was $3,300."*
> 
> Your own link says the # is more than twice the $2,853 you are now citing. Do you sincerely believe some of the things the NPR article says, while disbelieving the facts which are incovenient to your position?



Again the $2853 is not an NPR number. That is the statistic according the U.S. Department of Labor. Secondly.....of course they're going to be different. Why do you seemingly not yet understand the difference betweeen money spent per capita and percent of income spent. The latter is ALWAYS going to be less than the former. $6,400 is the avg. spent per person on health care in the U.S. It is NOT the avg. of what A person spent on health care ($2,853). [/quote]

I understand that you are leaving out the facts which are inconvenient in order to focus on a # that is more convenient, even though the two #'s were calculated differently.



> Look at this way. Those two numbers are avgs. and what the $6400 is the avg. yearly health care cost per person. Think of it as one year long doctor's bill. Instead of paying as you go, at the end of the year you get a bill for all of your medical expenses for the year. That is what the $6400 is. NOW, are you personally going to be on the hook for the entire $6400? No. your insurance is going to cover most of it. What comes out of your pocket is only going to be a fraction of that. When you write the check you aren't going to be writing it for $6400, you're only going to be writing it for what the insurance company didn't cover. THAT is what the $2853 represents. Understand?



I understand that you are desperate to make an argument, so you are willing to manipulate the #'s in any way possible. I also understand that the ENTIRE cost of health care eventually gets paid by the consumer. You obviously do not. You seem to think the non-out-of-pocket costs get paid for with magic money that just appears when needed to pay medical bills.




sangha said:


> It also says *"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 21 percent of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up a little more than half of that. "*
> 
> If you're not going to count the employers contribution for the US workers (and the study you cited does not) then why are you including the employers contribution for the French?
> 
> Or do you not care about how the #'s were counted as long as you can use them to appear as if you won something?



It depends on how you read it. I take the statement to read that if someone has a gross income of $100,000 a year (for the sake of using easy numbers), $21,000 OF THEIR GROSS goes to taxes for health care. The employer kicks in another $10,500 on top of that.

If interpreted as you did the statement _should_ read:

"To fund universal health care in France, workers are required to pay about 10.5% of their income into the national health care system. Employers pick up another 10.5%."[/QUOTE]

Your english skills need some work too. The phrase "Employers pick up" means they pay for a portion of it. "pick up" means to cover a portion (or all) of a bill


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 13, 2010)

sangha said:


> Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again



No I'm not. You're cleary just too stupid to understand basic statistics. If the above people don't pay anything out of their pocket for health care, they are still counted in the sample size. Their contribution to the sample size however would be zero. 



sangha said:


> It leaves out all the money taxpayers pay to pay for the healthcare. All it shows it that the French govt pays a lesser share of health care directly, so the only way you can make the #'s seem favorable for the US is to leave out huge portions of the population



The percent of income spent on health care doesn't leave anyone out. You are so fucking stupid it's not even funny anymore. PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HEALTH CARE *ONLY* COUNTS WHAT *YOU* SPENT ON HEALTHCARE. It doesn't count how much of your doctors bills were covered by insurance or how much of those bills were indirectly covered by tax payers. Why? BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUPPOSSED TO YOU IDIOT. if you include what you want to include the statistic ceases to be the percent of income an individual spends on health care when you start including money that isn't actually part of their income



sangha said:


> I understand that you are leaving out the facts which are inconvenient in order to focus on a # that is more convenient, even though the two #'s were calculated differently.



What you need to understand is the two numbers represent different things.




sangha said:


> I understand that you are desperate to make an argument, so you are willing to manipulate the #'s in any way possible. I also understand that the ENTIRE cost of health care eventually gets paid by the consumer. You obviously do not. You seem to think the non-out-of-pocket costs get paid for with magic money that just appears when needed to pay medical bills.



No I don't. What I do understand, that you are apparently too stupid to understand is that the statistic, percent of income spent on heatlh care is ONLY going to include out-of-pocket costs. Nothing else. Stop bitching to me just because you don't like what the statistic represents. If you dont' like the numbers, take it up with the DoL. if they give you something different we can talk about it.




sangha said:


> Your english skills need some work too. The phrase "Employers pick up" means they pay for a portion of it. "pick up" means to cover a portion (or all) of a bill



If employers pay 10.5 percent and employess pick up 10.5 percent, why state employees pick up 21% if all they are really paying is half of that? I can read fine. It's your common sense that needs work.


----------



## Douger (Dec 13, 2010)

That second vid shows the Brits tax dollars working for THEM.
Yours go to your masters buddies in banking, industry and to the land of the self chosen. IsNtReal.

STFU and fill out that 1040.


----------



## sangha (Dec 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does. It even says it doesn't include the institutionalized and most servicemembers. You're just lying again
> ...



All that blather, and you are still wrong, wrong and wrong.

People who are in the military or who are institutionalized DO NOT have all of their medical costs covered by others. Only a wingnut like you would be dumb enough to think so.

The employer paid portion of an employee's premium comes out of the money an employer has available to pay it's employees. If the employer didn't provide the insurance benefit, then they would have to pay more money to the employee, so the money the employer spends on health care does indeed come out of the employees pay.

That is why your entire position is a farce. In the end, all health care has to be paid for somehow. Measuring % Of income is meaningless, but your obsession prevents you from seeing this

And even funnier is how you can't even find any credible #'s concerning the % of income.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 21, 2010)

sangha said:


> All that blather, and you are still wrong, wrong and wrong.
> 
> People who are in the military or who are institutionalized DO NOT have all of their medical costs covered by others. Only a wingnut like you would be dumb enough to think so.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure how much more credible you can get than the department of labor. You're the one making shit up now. Mr. I'm just going to count the empoyers contribution against a person's income and come up with some imaginary figure of what someone might be paid if employers weren't covering part of the health care cost. You can dislike it all you want. But if we're going to talk about percent of income then the numbers in it actually have to be part of someone's realized income, not whatever you think it might be under different circumstances.

And no, I'm not hung up on that stat. If you don't like it, take it up with Greenbeard, or better yet the department of labor. As to who is left out you can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Are we talking about milatary personal AND the institutionalized now? Or just military people who have been institutonalized as you have written above? Either way you really think it's going to add that significantly to the number? OR.......if you just don't like what percent of income represents, which I suspect is the case, pick something else to talk about and we'll move on.

And for the love of God move the the fuck on if you don't care about percent of income spent on health care. You've been so fucking busy trying to show the number isn't accurate even though you have ZERO evidence for that, that we haven't even begun to discuss what it actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine. Do I really want to talk about this? Fuck no. The stat in of itself is meaningless. There can be all kinds of reasons it could be higher in one country than another that has nothing to do with the type of health care system used. I would rather talk about what you keep avoiding; the sustainability of the such a system which explained earlier.


----------



## sangha (Dec 23, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I'm not sure how much more credible you can get than the department of labor.



Let me know when the DoL issues a report on the $ of income spent on healthcare by the FRENCH!! 



Bern80 said:


> You're the one making shit up now. Mr. I'm just going to count the empoyers contribution against a person's income and come up with some imaginary figure of what someone might be paid if employers weren't covering part of the health care cost. You can dislike it all you want. But if we're going to talk about percent of income then the numbers in it actually have to be part of someone's realized income, not whatever you think it might be under different circumstances.



You're making up imaginary #'s and you think I'm the one making shit up now? 



Bern80 said:


> And no, I'm not hung up on that stat.



Youre' not? Then why do you keep bringing it up?



Bern80 said:


> If you don't like it, take it up with Greenbeard, or better yet the department of labor. As to who is left out you can't even keep your own bullshit straight. Are we talking about milatary personal AND the institutionalized now? Or just military people who have been institutonalized as you have written above? Either way you really think it's going to add that significantly to the number? OR.......if you just don't like what percent of income represents, which I suspect is the case, pick something else to talk about and we'll move on.



I clearly stated that the study excluded people in the military and the institutionalized. If you can't figure out what that means, I can't help you.





Bern80 said:


> And for the love of God move the the fuck on if you don't care about percent of income spent on health care. You've been so fucking busy trying to show the number isn't accurate even though you have ZERO evidence for that, that we haven't even begun to discuss what it actually means in terms of the benefits of socialized medicine.



Wingnuts like you think criticism is censorship. That's why you really do believe that I have prevented you from discussing "what it actually means" 

Your failure to make a point is your failure, not mine.



Bern80 said:


> Do I really want to talk about this? Fuck no. The stat in of itself is meaningless. There can be all kinds of reasons it could be higher in one country than another that has nothing to do with the type of health care system used. I would rather talk about what you keep avoiding; the sustainability of the such a system which explained earlier.



Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead

Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 27, 2010)

sangha said:


> Let me know when the DoL issues a report on the $ of income spent on healthcare by the FRENCH!!



What does that have to do with anything?



Bern80 said:


> You're making up imaginary #'s and you think I'm the one making shit up now?



Please cite the numbers I have made up since citing the DoL source.



sangha said:


> Wingnuts like you think criticism is censorship. That's why you really do believe that I have prevented you from discussing "what it actually means"
> 
> Your failure to make a point is your failure, not mine.



I never accussed you of preventing anything. I stated we haven't gotten to that part of the discussion yet because you insist on disagreeing with accuracy of the statistics provided, in truth, for no other reason than that they do not reflect your opinion.



sangha said:


> Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead
> 
> Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable



Are you sure you want to insist the French system has only run at a deficit once? It has run at a deficit for the last 5 years and is only projected to get worse. Now consider the fact that no matter who does the paying or how, resources still need to be paid for. One of those resources is of course the doctors, who in france make roughly half of what doctors in the U.S. make and they STILL have a deficit. Think every doctor in the U.S. is ready to take a 50% pay cut for your wonderful idea?


----------



## sangha (Jan 3, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, so you want to go back to the "a program with a one year deficit is unsustainable" argument? Go right ahead
> ...



I see that, once again, you have totally failed. I'll ask again

*Just explain how the Dept of Defense, which has run a deficit EVERY YEAR since the administration of George Washington, is unsustainable*


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 4, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Are you sure your not the one making up stats now. Where exactly did you find defense budget figures going back to George Washington? 

I already explained why it's unsustainable several pages ago, but you chose to claim some 'other' stats provided by the government were not even close to accurate.


----------



## jgarden (Jan 5, 2011)

> Price of health care and administration overheads
> 
> In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_health_care_systems_in_Canada_and_the_United_States


*The question opponents of universal healthcare should be asking is why the US government is spending $604 (US) more per capita ($2724(US)) for a largely "private" system, than the Canadian government is spending ($2,120(US)) on its "public" system?*



> A 1999 report found that after exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0% of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7% of health care expenditures in Canada. In looking at the insurance element, in Canada, the provincial single-payer insurance system operated with overheads of 1.3%, comparing favourably with private insurance overheads (13.2%), U.S. private insurance overheads (11.7%) and U.S. Medicare and Medicaid program overheads (3.6% and 6.8% respectively). The report concluded by observing that gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration had grown to $752 per capita and that a large sum might be saved in the United States if the U.S. implemented a Canadian-style health care system.


*While "administrative costs" of the American private sector (11.7%) compared well with its Canadian counterpart (13.2%), overall expeditures for administration were almost double in the US.

The most glaring difference emerged from costs associated with the "provincial single-payer insurance system," - the so-called inefficient government sector which had an operating overhead of just 1.3%.*


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 5, 2011)

jgarden said:


> > Price of health care and administration overheads
> >
> > In the United States, the various levels of government spend more per capita on health care than levels of government do in Canada. In 2004, Canada government-spending was $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government-spending $2,724.
> >
> ...



I don't dispute what we pay per capita or the numbers you posted. I dispute the insistance that a government solution to those issues is the best solution.


----------



## sangha (Jan 5, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Do you really think that the DoD has EVER run a surplus? If you're that deluded, then please explain how the DoD budget could possibly run a surplus

And you never explained why the DoD is unsustainable. Please be honest about this


----------



## sangha (Jan 5, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > > Price of health care and administration overheads
> ...



You haven't "disputed" anything. You have _asserted_ a claim that a govt solution is a bad solution, but you haven't posted any facts to back up your assertion. In fact, you havent even posted an argument (ie an assertion thats backed up by facts)


----------



## jgarden (Jan 5, 2011)

*The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.

The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector,  the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!

Now might be a good time for our conservatives "friends" to provide an example of even 1 private health system that can match the costs and health outcomes of their neighbor to the North

The liberals have been long been reduced to operating on a "playing field" that is anything but level - its about time our conservative "friends" produced a "working model" of a private healthcare system so it can held up to the same level of scrutiny that the "right" has used when dismissing what they consider more "socialist" approaches.*


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2011)

jgarden said:


> *The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.
> 
> The more "fragmented" the US system becomes in an effort to pacify the vested interests of the "private" sector,  the more money is being siphoned-off from medical to non-medical purposes (ie administration)!
> 
> ...



And it's time our liberal 'friends' start seeing that government is the problem, not the solution. The problems with health care in this country, mainly cost to the consumer, are not result of too much free market. You need to consider the possibility that it is a result of not enough. You need to consider that low cost to the consumer is not the defining characteristic of a good health care system. Certainly it's part of it, but other factors need to wieghed as well. How the resources in the system paid for? Do people have adequate access to service (not the same thing as affordability)?

Part of our problem is we've never allowed the market to determine what the true cost of service ought to be. Another part of it is in looking for a solution, liberals never want to look at themselves. You want health care costs to go down? I have a solution that costs NOTHING. TAKE FUCKING CARE OF YOURSELF. We are an amazingly unhealthy country. And the galling thing is, unlike some 3rd world countries, we have the resources to be healthy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> jgarden said:
> 
> 
> > *The problem with "Obamacare" is that it doesn't go far enough to create a national "inified" health system that would reduce "operational costs" (1.6%) comparable to those associated with Canada.
> ...



Good post.
Government is not the solution but the current group health insurance paid disease care we now have that pays 60% of all health care dollars for 4% of the population is a business, not a health care, model. 
Profits are in the disease care for health care businesses. 
The current system is unsustainable and broken and needs to be torn down and started over from scratch. Insurance benefit "I get my health care for free" model is the problem.
Group health care has ruined American "health" care.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



I agree. I don't like the government solution, but the insurance model isn't so great either. There needs to be a way that cost of care more directly affects the individual in my opinion. Something that encourages more responsibility of one's health care dollars. Most people pay their premiums and don't think much more about it. At the very least the insurance industry needs to be much less regulated which i think would give them the opportunity to provide plans with a much higher degree of customization and shoudl bring premium cost down. 

Another would be some way of encouraging people to pay the service provider directly. This would also bring costs down since someone is more likely to shop around to find the least expensive clinic to have an x-ray done or whate have you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No, most people don't pay any premiums. Their employer pays it.
How come your auto insurance does not pay for oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners doesn't pay for new HVAC and paint?
Benefit health insurance has ruined the system.
We need to end it and go back to YOU negotiate and pay for your health insurance and care and EVERYONE does that.
"I get mine for free" mentality in the insurance health care market and Medicare is bankrupting the country.


----------



## sangha (Jan 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.

Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.


----------



## sangha (Jan 11, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Wrong. Most people pay at least half of their premiums. Few employers pay %100 of the premium

Every year, employers negotiate with the insurers over the benefits and premiums. No corp is forced to buy insurance. And once a corp sets up group coverage for it's employees', no one is forced to become a member of the group.

Everyone is free to go out and negotiate for their own health care. You could do that today, if you weren't such a whiny fraud.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 11, 2011)

sangha said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...




Name one large corporation, government employee, retiree, competitive industry (yes, we still have them) where the employees "pay at least half of their premiums"?
Where are they and who are they other than low end dish washing jobs?

I own 3 corporations and spend tens of thousands each year on health coverage. Under the current competitive system, which in the end kills us in the world market as health coverage is so much higher here which reflects in lower gross profits, employers are forced to offer a better compensation package than their competitors for the best talent. That is how it always happens in my, the REAL, world.  If you do not have a fine health package for your employees Moe then the next guy WILL offer it and you are at a competitive disadvantage. Talent seeks the best benefit package. That is how business works in the free market. That is how IT ALWAYS WORKS. 
And guess what Moe? When I go and negotiate yearly for my plans over the last 25 years, EACH AND EVERY year the premiums go up at least 10-15% a year for less coverage. 
Part of your argument is true and it supports my thesis 100% but you are more interested in calling childish names it goes 20 feet over your head. Under the current system employees are getting LESS COVERAGE every year with more co-pays and higher deductibles because of the exorbitant costs. And why are costs rising? Over demand with kids going to the doctor with a common cold. Just one example of dozens but over demand has to be paid for. And group health care pays the tab.
Let me educate you as to the history of group health care as a benefit. During WWII ALL United States businesses WERE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING RAISES to employees. So what did they do to attract the best workers? They offered health care as a benefit. That was not considered a raise. That was not practiced until then. Now take a long look at what happened: Before this YOU, not the insurance company, WERE THE CUSTOMER. YOU paid the bill. After that the insurance company was the customer as they pay the bills. Now we have the insurance companies defining the coverage, what doctors and hospitals will get paid and who gets what.
Where did I claim everyone has to buy group insurance and that everyone can not go and buy their own? Private policies are far higher as they, at an average of less than 10K a year HAVE LITTLE OR NO LEVERAGE than an employer negotiating per employee for a company of 1000-50,000 workers as an example. The more employees in large group plans the less profit an insurance company makes per employee. And they admit that is why they have to charge the private market single insureds so much more. Just the facts.
Fact is that group health care has run the price up with the demand of "My employer pays it and it is free".
How come your car insurance does not pay your oil changes and tires?
How come your home owners does not pay for new carpet, new HVAC and paint?
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT NEGOTIATED BY THE TENS OF THOUSANDS in that type of a competitive market where THE DEMAND is there for it. That demand IS IN THE group health care benefit market.
I know as I have been self employed for 30 years, sold health and other insurance for 2years and deal with health insurance issues DAILY as CEO of 3 corporations. 
The current system is unsustainable and will bankrupt the country within 2 decades. What we have is blank check health care for seniors and over demand in the benefit group health care system in a disease care model where 60% of all the $$ goes to 4% of the population.
You may not like the facts but that is your ignorance. All  I do is post FACTS.


----------



## mdn2000 (Jan 11, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > jgarden said:
> ...



We have no facts proving the government solution is a good solution. We do have facts that show the government does a bad job at many things. Take the George Bush presidency, some argue that is a great example of government doing a bad job. Now we have the same government stating they can run a better health care system. Prices have gone up and people are dropped now and its barely even gotten started.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.
> 
> Basically, reality has proven that your solutions (less regulation, more out of pocket expenses) leads to a more expensive, and less effective, health care system.



Again you are only looking at the cost to the consumer. You simply can not consider that the defining factor of what constitutes a good health care system. You keep glossing over how these wonder systems of yours are funded and the reality is they are heavily subsidized and are STILL under funded. Claiming the do it at a lower cost is a bit of a red herring when you consider that lower cost is artificially mandated either by government mandating how much they will pay for resources are simply the inability to fund them. 

Look at France again. There doctors make about half of what ours make. And their government STILL can't pay for all of the resources. This is has been going on for about the last 5 years or so in France and is not projected to get any better. Their government is now being forced to make decisions about how much it will reimburse and what procedures it will pay for. The way France has chosen to pay for health care does not meet the cost of the demand on resources. THAT is the definition of unsustainable. Market forces are immutabele. They take over eventually. The actions France is having to take is proving that. They may have started out with a system that cost the taxpayers little money and meat their demands but that is slowly being eroded away as the government does away with paying for certain things.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.
> ...



True but our government is now borrowing 40% of the costs of Medicare which pays private doctors and hospitals under the disease care model I have posted the facts on.
How does a family pay a health care premium to an insurance company in 15 years that will be over 20K per family on average?
How does a nation function when 33% of GNP will be health care in 2 decades? 
This system is unsustainable as a group health care private insurance health care model.
NO ONE will face the facts.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Most people do not work for a large corporation but Wal Mart only pays half the premium



> I own 3 corporations and spend tens of thousands each year on health coverage. Under the current competitive system, which in the end kills us in the world market as health coverage is so much higher here which reflects in lower gross profits, employers are forced to offer a better compensation package than their competitors for the best talent. That is how it always happens in my, the REAL, world.  If you do not have a fine health package for your employees Moe then the next guy WILL offer it and you are at a competitive disadvantage. Talent seeks the best benefit package. That is how business works in the free market. That is how IT ALWAYS WORKS.



If you can't run your business at a profit, that's YOUR fault.



> And guess what Moe? When I go and negotiate yearly for my plans over the last 25 years, EACH AND EVERY year the premiums go up at least 10-15% a year for less coverage.
> Part of your argument is true and it supports my thesis 100% but you are more interested in calling childish names it goes 20 feet over your head. Under the current system employees are getting LESS COVERAGE every year with more co-pays and higher deductibles because of the exorbitant costs. And why are costs rising? Over demand with kids going to the doctor with a common cold. Just one example of dozens but over demand has to be paid for. And group health care pays the tab.
> Let me educate you as to the history of group health care as a benefit. During WWII ALL United States businesses WERE PROHIBITED FROM GIVING RAISES to employees. So what did they do to attract the best workers? They offered health care as a benefit. That was not considered a raise. That was not practiced until then. Now take a long look at what happened: Before this YOU, not the insurance company, WERE THE CUSTOMER. YOU paid the bill. After that the insurance company was the customer as they pay the bills. Now we have the insurance companies defining the coverage, what doctors and hospitals will get paid and who gets what.
> Where did I claim everyone has to buy group insurance and that everyone can not go and buy their own? Private policies are far higher as they, at an average of less than 10K a year HAVE LITTLE OR NO LEVERAGE than an employer negotiating per employee for a company of 1000-50,000 workers as an example. The more employees in large group plans the less profit an insurance company makes per employee. And they admit that is why they have to charge the private market single insureds so much more. Just the facts.
> ...



Do you have a point? You claim to be posting facts but all you have is your anecdotes about you have so much trouble running a business. I don't think your business incompetence is an argument for health care deregulation.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

mdn2000 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Speak for yourself. If this thread proves anything it's that YOU have no facts. The FACTS show that the nations with the best healthcare systems (ex France, Great Britain, Canada) all have "govt solutions"

You can't refute the facts, so you have to lie and deny that the facts exist


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The facts are clear. The nations with the best health care systems, as measured by outcomes, have "government solutions" (as you call them). They not only deliver better care overall, but they do so at a cost substantially lower than what it costs us to deliver lower quality health care.
> ...



Bern can't help but lie. I include ALL of the costs

And once again, bern claims that a program that runs a deficit is "unsustainable" but he runs away whenever I challenge him on this point. He still hasn't explained how the Dept of Defense, which has ALWAYS had a deficit, is "unsustainable"

Bern thinks that he can just make stuff up


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No Sangha, The problem is with your definition of best. And your definition of best is what costs the customer the least and that's about it.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > mdn2000 said:
> ...



Once again, bern has to lie because he thinks it's better for americans to pay more for lower quality health care


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




I wonder how mature I would look if I replied to Sangha in the third person through the remainder of this post...........

No you dream up costs. You are the one who claimed the DoL figures can't possibly be accurate yet can't explain what they left out. And just as you would not debate what percent of income means with out accurate stats I am not going to debate the dept of defenses budget without FACTS. 

We can however talk about the concept of sustainability. The best analogy to look at this from is look at it like your credit card. I know what you're getting at, that one can carry over debt almost indefinatley. Well the key word there is 'almost'. Just like the way government spends money, most americans with credit cards keep a running balance on their cards. That is the don't pay their whole balance each month. They pay the minimum or something less than the full balance. Now the credit card company isn't going to come after you as long as you keep paying your minimums, nor will our countries debtors. It's cash flow for them. So people tell themselves they're not in trouble because they're paying their 20 bucks or whatever that they are required to and just kind of forget that they owe another $10,000. Again the credit card company will let you do that for a long time. BUT at some point you WILL have to pay that $10,000. 

And there are all kinds of unintended consequences of that that people don't think of. People don't just make one purchase on the credit card, they make many purchases. They keep adding to that $10,000 they owe or make little head way in paying it down. Another unintended consequence is the interest. As the saying goes, people who understand interest earn it, people who don't pay it. The interest makes whatever you purchase cost more than it's stated price. You go to Best Buy and purchase a TV with your credit card for $1000. You tell people the TV cost you $1000. Well no it didn't if you're not paying your card. Can you tell me how much that TV really cost you if you leave it on your card with a 20% interest rate and pay only the minimums.

NOW can you really tell me it's just not a problem for an individual or government to spend that way? Sure maybe you can make the monthly payments and do it for a long time. What you don't see is that unless you start bringng in more money, the power of interest and continued spending is just going to make that debt bigger and bigger and bigger and at some point someone is going to demand they be paid what's owed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Does the Department of Defense grow at 15% a year, every year?
Is DOD a private sector entity?
When Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are 85% of the entire budget in 2 decades or less how is that sustainable?


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses

The military budget is  $548.9 billion  for 2011. Please explain when the DoD will have to pay back that  $548.9 billion


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Frances costs for health care don't grow 15% a year, every year
France's health care is not a private sector entity
France does not spend 86% of it's budget on health care


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Calling someone a liar then lieing yourself is rarely a good debate strategy.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> No you dream up costs.




U.S. Still Spends More on Health Care than Any Other Country
I guess John Hopkins School of Public Health had the same dream I did


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses



So are you chicken shit. If you don't understand the concept of sustainability having explained it to you twice now, you never will




sangha said:


> The military budget is  $548.9 billion  for 2011. Please explain when the DoD will have to pay back that  $548.9 billion



I have no idea. I have no idea what the difference is in the budget and what they can pay for. I have no idea who financed the difference. I have no idea over what period of time that difference will be financed over or at what rate. I DO know at some point someone is going to want all of their money back with interest.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > No you dream up costs.
> ...



I was referring to you calling the DoL numbers bogus.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, bern80 runs away from a challenge. I asked him to explain how the Dod, which has been running deficits for centuries, is unsustainable. Instead of responding, bern wants to argue that the DoD is running budget surpluses
> ...



According to your "explanation", the DoD will have to someday pay back all the money it borrowed from tax revenues

But for some reason, you won't explain HOW or even WHEN the DoD will have to pay this money back. It seems you think that Frances' health care program is the only program that is not allowed to run a deficit.




sangha said:


> The military budget is  $548.9 billion  for 2011. Please explain when
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/quote]

Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.

But keep on telling us about how someday, some unnamed people are going to DEMAND THEIR MONEY back from the US Dept of Defense


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You said (but I'm sure you'll deny saying it) that you wouldn't believe that France spent less on health care until I showed you the #'s.

I just did, but you still won't believe it. You only believe what you already believe. You are immune to facts, which is why you think the US DoD will someday have to pay money back (WITH INTEREST!!!!!!!) to some unnamed people


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.
> 
> But keep on telling us about how someday, some unnamed people are going to DEMAND THEIR MONEY back from the US Dept of Defense



Umm yes, idiot. I would think anyone who borrows money to someone regardless of who it is is going to want to be repaid. I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back.  

And I understand completely that France's heath care and DoD are funded at a defecit. My point is in both cases they will have to pay someone eventually. Just like you will someday have to payoff the entirety of the balance on your credit card (well unless you leave to your kids of course).


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No I didn't ever say that mainly because it's a rather vague statement. Less how? Less per capita, less in total dollars spent on health care, less as a % of GDP, less as a percent of income? I don't speak in vagueries, you do. 

It's a fact now that the DoD will not have to pay back what it borrows. Interesting. Prove it. Find for me the institutin that is giving the DoD money that supposedly doesn't knows and doesn't care if it gets its money back. I'll wait.


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you have no idea. You're just too stupid and ignorant to realize that Frances' health care and the US military budget are financed in the same way. They both use taxpayer revenues taken from their treasury. That's why neither the US military budget nor Frances' health care system is in any danger of going bankrupt.
> ...





Ummm, you must be too stupid to realize that neither the DoD or Frances health care system gets its' money from borrowing.




> I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back.



Every year, every taxpayer sends money to the DoD knowing they will never get it back

Correction - not every taxpayer knows they're not getting the money back. Idiots like you think your tax payment was a loan


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Less how? You really must be stupid if you don't know that we spend more PER CAPITA than any other nation, and more IN TOTAL, than any other nation. We spend a higher % of GDP on health care than France, and we receive a lower level of care than France does.

In other words, they spend less IN EVERY WAY YOU MENTIONED with the only possible exception being "as a percent of income" because those #'s are not available.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



......and they can't actually pay for it. You keep proving my point about you lazy ass liberals. You don't care how it gets paid for as long as it ain't you. If someone else has to go in debt to do it, fine. If the bill has get passed on generation to generation who gives a shit as long as I (you) don't have to deal with it right?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> Ummm, you must be too stupid to realize that neither the DoD or Frances health care system gets its' money from borrowing.



Where do they get it then smart guy?




sangha said:


> Every year, every taxpayer sends money to the DoD knowing they will never get it back
> 
> Correction - not every taxpayer knows they're not getting the money back. Idiots like you think your tax payment was a loan



Why would I think I'm going to get what I pay in taxes back?


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



bern can't admit that I pwned his ass by showing that Frances health care is cheaper in every way that has been measured, so now he's going to make up stuff about the how govt can't pay the DoD's budget, and how France can't pay for health care, even though they are 

And once again, bern is repeating the nonsense that the DoD has to borrow money to pay its' bills


----------



## sangha (Jan 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm, you must be too stupid to realize that neither the DoD or Frances health care system gets its' money from borrowing.
> ...



The treasury, stupid guy

Is there any other commonly known fact that you need to learn for this discussion to continue?




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Every year, every taxpayer sends money to the DoD knowing they will never get it back
> ...



You keep saying that someday, someone the taxpayers are going to want their money back, WITH INTEREST


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

sangha said:


> bern can't admit that I pwned his ass by showing that Frances health care is cheaper in every way that has been measured, so now he's going to make up stuff about the how govt can't pay the DoD's budget, and how France can't pay for health care, even though they are



Man why didn't someone tell me all I had to do was declare myself winner to win an argument. Woulda been so much easier.....

If they are paying for their health care how is they ran a deficit for the last 5 years? This isn't politics Sangha. This is basic principles of finance. I can't wait to see you in a few years when the debtors are knocking at your door because you thought keeping debt didn't matter.



sangha said:


> The treasury, stupid guy
> 
> Is there any other commonly known fact that you need to learn for this discussion to continue?



Sure is. Next I would like to know where the treasury gets its money.




sangha said:


> You keep saying that someday, someone the taxpayers are going to want their money back, WITH INTEREST



I said no such thing. I'm fairly certain most tax payers are not under the impression that the taxes they pay are a loan.


----------



## Chris (Jan 12, 2011)

All healthcare is socialized unless you are paying out of pocket.

The French have the best system, and it is a combination of public and private insurance.

They do healthcare better than we do. They have more doctors per capita, limit liability, costs are less per capita than ours, and they cover everyone.

And their life expectancy to two year longer than ours.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2011)

Chris said:


> All healthcare is socialized unless you are paying out of pocket.
> 
> The French have the best system, and it is a combination of public and private insurance.
> 
> They do healthcare better than we do. They have more doctors per capita, limit liability, costs are less per capita than ours, and they cover everyone.



And they're going into debt to do it and their doctors make half what ours do. Two factors that will make it extremely difficult to apply to the U.S. and have it be successful. Again, the problem with the left is there insistant focus on just one factor; the cost to the customer. You think if you just fix that everything will be just swell.  Paying out of pocket is not the worst idea either for a lot of people. If more people did it, costs would likely go down.



Chris said:


> And their life expectancy to two year longer than ours.



You're a complete idiot if you think life expectency has much of anything to do with the quality of a countries health care system.


----------



## MikeK (Jan 12, 2011)

Meister said:


> I don't think there are too many conservatives that believed Bush was a conservative.  He sure didn't govern our country that way.


I was a Conservative and a registered Republican voter going all the way back to Barry Goldwater.  But I re-registered as a Democrat in 2004 -- only because there is no Independent Party in New Jersey and I wish to vote in primaries.  

I was motivated to detach from the Republican Party because it has gradually morphed into something more appropriately called the neo-Fascist Party.  And as for today's Conservatives, while most of them don't realize they _are_ neo-Fascists some of them are well aware of it and are proud of it.  

What the events of the past few days has clearly shown is America is a divided nation and many of the things we see happening here now bear a strong resemblance to what happened in Germany in the early 1930s.  And as Santayana wisely observed, _"They who ignore history are doomed to repeat it._"


----------



## Christopher (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bern can't admit that I pwned his ass by showing that Frances health care is cheaper in every way that has been measured, so now he's going to make up stuff about the how govt can't pay the DoD's budget, and how France can't pay for health care, even though they are
> ...



You have more patience than I do for Sangha's intellectual dishonesty.  Rep is coming your way.

Edit: Sorry, I have to spread some around first.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 13, 2011)

Chris said:


> All healthcare is socialized unless you are paying out of pocket.
> 
> The French have the best system, and it is a combination of public and private insurance.
> 
> ...



A few questions:
Do you believe the current plan that the Republicans plan to repeal will increase doctors per capita, limit liability, and increase longevity?  If so, please explain specific reasons.

Do you believe having a public option will reduce health care costs?  If so, please explain specific reasons.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

Christopher said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




Admittedly it is tough debating someone who asks for facts (percent of income spent on health care), is supplied the facts (from the DoL), then says the source has the facts wrong with no evidence to support that statement.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern, the treasury gets its' money from taxpayers.

The following is the quote where you claimed that taxpayers are going to want their money back (with interest) from the DoD



Bern80 said:


> Umm yes, idiot. I would think anyone who borrows money to someone regardless of who it is is going to want to be repaid. *I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back*.
> 
> And I understand completely that France's heath care and DoD are funded at a defecit. *My point is in both cases they will have to pay someone eventually*. Just like you will someday have to payoff the entirety of the balance on your credit card (well unless you leave to your kids of course).



Now tell me again about how you never said that the someone will want the DoD to pay them back?

I'll wait


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > All healthcare is socialized unless you are paying out of pocket.
> ...



The US is going into even greater debt than France to finance our system, and increasing out of pocket costs has never reduced the total cost of health care. Not to the consumer, and not to the govt.

bern is trying to argue that "govt solutions are bad" but he just has no evidence to back it up. All he can do is claim that it's bad. He can't back his words up with evidence


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > All healthcare is socialized unless you are paying out of pocket.
> ...



Once again, bern is reduced to making ridiculous claims that he will never back up with evidence

This wingnut is stupid enough to think that health care has nothing to do with how long a person lives


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I posted links which show that France pays less per capita and in total than the US does for health care.

Bern has CLAIMED that the French pay a greater share of their income on health care, but he hasn't been able to provide the evidence to back himself up. He now is trying to claim that the DOL has info on the % of income the French pay on health care


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern, the treasury gets its' money from taxpayers.
> 
> The following is the quote where you claimed that taxpayers are going to want their money back (with interest) from the DoD
> 
> ...




Well the problem is your reading comprehension sucks. I said someone will want their money back. That someone would be whoever financed the shortfall in the budget. A shortfall occurs when you've already spent what you took from the taxpayers and you still don't have enough, which is the case in France and with the DoD and any other entity that owes more than it can collect in revenue/income.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern, the treasury gets its' money from taxpayers.
> ...



No, you said nothing about financing the general budgets' deficit. You only spoke of the DoD's budget. You said:

*I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back*

Every year, millions of taxpayers give money for the DoD with no expectation that they wil get it back.



> A shortfall occurs when you've already spent what you took from the taxpayers and you still don't have enough, which is the case in France and with the DoD and any other entity that owes more than it can collect in revenue/income.



Yes, and govt agencies have shortfalls every year, and they are sustainable.

What was your point again? Wasn't it that govt agencies that run deficits are unsustainable? So when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...




Yes I did. Go read the links I posted early on. You keep on lieing about what I've said seeing as it's the only way you can win the argument. You've lied in every post for probably the last dozen or so about what I've said. I NEVER said the DoL had stats on France. They are of course U.S. figures. and you are the one who claimed those statistics for the U.S. were wrong.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



No, you posted #'s that excluded the military and the instutionalized, two of the largest groups of health care consumers


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> No, you said nothing about financing the general budgets' deficit. You only spoke of the DoD's budget. You said:
> 
> *I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back*



Now you're just nitpicking. You're not even interested in the topic anymore. Anyone with gray matter between their ears should have picked up that the pronoun 'no one' in the context of this sentence referrs to whomver financed the difference in the budget shortfall. You can keep being deliberately obtuse if you want. I'm just not sure where that gets us.



sangha said:


> Yes, and govt agencies have shortfalls every year, and they are sustainable.
> 
> What was your point again? Wasn't it that govt agencies that run deficits are unsustainable? So when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable?



Then we have different definitions of sustainability. You apparently would call having a $10,000 credit card debt and growing and only paying the minimum each month, sustainable.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > No, you said nothing about financing the general budgets' deficit. You only spoke of the DoD's budget. You said:
> ...



I see. You say it, then you deny saying it, so when I prove you said it, it's just "nitpicking" 

And you follow it up with a claim that "no one" means "whoever is financing the govts' debt". FYI, the treasury finances the difference in the DoD budget, and the treasury does not want or expect the money back.



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and govt agencies have shortfalls every year, and they are sustainable.
> ...



Once again, when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable? The DoD's "credit card" has a balance of  $548.9 billion. Last time I looked,  $548.9 billion is a lot more than $10,000

Once again, when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Actually you made that up, because nowhere in the DoL numbers cited does it indicate those people were excluded.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Sure it didn't. And you never said that someone is going to want their money back from the DoD 



> I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> I see. You say it, then you deny saying it, so when I prove you said it, it's just "nitpicking"
> 
> And you follow it up with a claim that "no one" means "whoever is financing the govts' debt". FYI, the treasury finances the difference in the DoD budget, and the treasury does not want or expect the money back.



NO SHIT the treasury knows what was taken to pay for the DoD is not a loan. Anything else you'd like to add cpt. obvious? What I'm telling you is the difference in the DoD budget and what the treasury supplied via the taxpayers was paid for by someone.




sangha said:


> Once again, when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable? The DoD's "credit card" has a balance of  $548.9 billion. Last time I looked,  $548.9 billion is a lot more than $10,000



Once again do YOU consider it sustainable to have a credit card debt and only pay the minimums on your balance each month?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Sure it didn't. And you never said that someone is going to want their money back from the DoD



Well you never cited it any evidence for that statement and I certainly can't find anywhere in the links I provided where that is stated. So I'm forced to pull a page out of your play book; until you cite where it is stated that the DoL numbers don't include what you claim the only conclusion one can draw is that you made it up.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I see. You say it, then you deny saying it, so when I prove you said it, it's just "nitpicking"
> ...



No, what you told me is that 


> *I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back
> *



Now you're claiming that you meant that NOBODY expects to get any money back from the DoD 




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, when are you going to explain how the DoD, which has run a deficit for CENTURIES is unsustainable? The DoD's "credit card" has a balance of  $548.9 billion. Last time I looked,  $548.9 billion is a lot more than $10,000
> ...



So now you have to make up stuff about paying the minimum?

Who is only paying the minimum each month? France? The DoD?


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it didn't. And you never said that someone is going to want their money back from the DoD
> ...



Of course I never quoted from the link, And you never said 


> *I'm pretty sure no one is giving money to the dept of defense knowing their never going to get it back
> *


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Okay Sang. Which is more important to you? What I typed (even though most should have understood the context) or what my argument actually is?



sangha said:


> So now you have to make up stuff about paying the minimum?
> 
> Who is only paying the minimum each month? France? The DoD?



We aren't even to France yet. The question stands on it's own and it's a simple yes or no. Pick one.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm still waiting for you to make an argument. So far, all you've done is make claims



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > So now you have to make up stuff about paying the minimum?
> ...



Umm, I see no relevancy to your question. Neither the DoD nor the french health care systems finances its' budget with a credit card that it only pays the minimum on. When you can explain the relevancy of this to the DoD's budget, then I'll respond.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Umm, I see no relevancy to your question. Neither the DoD nor the french health care systems finances its' budget with a credit card that it only pays the minimum on. When you can explain the relevancy of this to the DoD's budget, then I'll respond.



It is relevent because wether it is an individual or government both have debt. Both commited to paying for things that didn't immediatly have the money for. That difference needs to be paid for sometime, some way. In the case of an individual a balance goes on their credit card and you pay off the balance over time while the credit card company completes the transaction with the seller. The same scenario is applicable to government spending. The DoD and the French healh care system have commited to paying for x amount of dollars worth of stuff. The find, AFTER the treasury has kicked in their part they still don't have the money to cover x right now. We'll use some fake numbers because for purposes of this exercise the numbers are irrelevent. Either the DoD or French health care, whomever you want to use for this example, have say a budget of $100 million dollars for the year. Once they've collected all the tax revenue they can and fees and what not they find the only have 75 million. 

My question is in the case of government, who pays the 25 million dollar difference that is still owed? It's not the taxpayers. They already kicked in their shaere. It can be done a few ways. Maybe they agree to pay the 100 million over time or maybe they are loaned the money. Let's look at it financed over a period of time;

Maybe the DoD gets it's various contractors to agree to paying that 100 million over 10 years. So they owe 10 million dollars every year for 10 years to pay for the current years budget, probably with interest. What happens the next year. We all know government budgets and we know they almost never go down. So the next years budget is also at least 100 million dollars. The decided to finance THAT over 10 years, now owing at least 20 million a year for the next 9 years (in the incredible unliklihood they don't do the same with next years budget). Now explain to me how either that is not a plausible scenario or why it's not a problem.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Umm, I see no relevancy to your question. Neither the DoD nor the french health care systems finances its' budget with a credit card that it only pays the minimum on. When you can explain the relevancy of this to the DoD's budget, then I'll respond.
> ...



And it is being paid for. And not in "some way"; It's paid for with tax revenues from the treasury. So how are credit cards relevant?



> In the case of an individual a balance goes on their credit card and you pay off the balance over time while the credit card company completes the transaction with the seller. The same scenario is applicable to government spending. The DoD and the French healh care system have commited to paying for x amount of dollars worth of stuff. The find, AFTER the treasury has kicked in their part they still don't have the money to cover x right now. We'll use some fake numbers because for purposes of this exercise the numbers are irrelevent. Either the DoD or French health care, whomever you want to use for this example, have say a budget of $100 million dollars for the year. Once they've collected all the tax revenue they can and fees and what not they find the only have 75 million.



Neither the DoD nor Frances' health care system borrow money to fund their deficits, so there is nothing to pay off over time. Once again, you're claiming that taxpayers are expecting a refund from the DoD.



> My question is in the case of government, who pays the 25 million dollar difference that is still owed? It's not the taxpayers.



Yes it is the taxpayers, you idiot. In your example, the DoD (or the french health care system) gets $100million from the treasury. They owe nothing to no one. There is no one to pay back, and no one who expects to be paid back. Not the tax payers, and not the treasury



> They already kicked in their shaere. It can be done a few ways. Maybe they agree to pay the 100 million over time or maybe they are loaned the money. Let's look at it financed over a period of time;
> 
> Maybe the DoD gets it's various contractors to agree to paying that 100 million over 10 years. So they owe 10 million dollars every year for 10 years to pay for the current years budget, probably with interest. What happens the next year. We all know government budgets and we know they almost never go down. So the next years budget is also at least 100 million dollars. The decided to finance THAT over 10 years, now owing at least 20 million a year for the next 9 years (in the incredible unliklihood they don't do the same with next years budget). Now explain to me how either that is not a plausible scenario or why it's not a problem.



No, the DoD got 100million from the treasury. The borrowed nothing. They paid their contractors. The DoD is not endebted to those contractors.

But at least I now know WHY your credit card argument is irrelevant. It's because you're such a loon, you think the DoD (and the french health care system) are financing their budgets with loans 

Where did you get this wacky idea from ?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I can not for the life of me figure out how someone can possibly be so dumb as to conclude I said any of the above.

LISTEN YOU FUCKING MORON.

What I said was the DoDs budget is 100 million dollars. In taxes they collect 75 million dollars. THAT is how much they got from the treasury, not all 100 million. If they got all 100 million we wouldn't be talking about deficits at all because there wouldn't be one. How fucking retarded are you?

They don't borrow money to pay for their deficits. How EXACTLY do they pay what they owe then? 

Just out of curiosity how much money do you owe that you don't think you owe?


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



God you are funny

The DoD doesn't collect anything in taxes. The IRS does. The money goes into the treasury. The treasury GIVES, not loans, all $100 million to the DoD because that's what an act of congress orders them to do.

But keep insisting that the DoD only receives a fraction of what Congress allocates to the DoD. I could always use additional laughs


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> God you are funny
> 
> The DoD doesn't collect anything in taxes. The IRS does. The money goes into the treasury. The treasury GIVES, not loans, all $100 million to the DoD because that's what an act of congress orders them to do.
> 
> But keep insisting that the DoD only receives a fraction of what Congress allocates to the DoD. I could always use additional laughs



oh......so neither the DoD nor the French health care system run deficits after all. good to know.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > God you are funny
> ...



They do run deficits. They don't have to borrow money to pay for them. Instead, the legislature passes an appropriations bill which instructs the treasury to supply the money. There is no loan. There is no credit card. There is no interest.

Want to try again?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



So it would be your contention that deficits are meaningless as far as government spending is concerned?

Gonna do a hypothetical here and you tell me where I mess up okay.

Some countries budgest for fiscal year is a trilliion dollars. The treasury can't collect a trillion dollars in taxes, but somehow the treausury comes up with the money anyway? how exactly? Don't you fucking get it. This is what americans are so pissed off about. That government spends more than the treasuery and IRS collect from taxpayers. And your telling me, somehow the treasury comes up with the money anyway?


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So it would be your contention that the DoD finances some of its' activites by putting in on a DoD credit card and then only pays the minimum?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



No. My contention is that the DoD and french health care system spend more than they take in in tax revenues.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Neither the DoD nor the french health care system "take in" any tax revenues. The IRS collects the money and deposits it in the treasurys' acct. Money is appropriated from the treasury by the legislature.


----------



## bornright (Jan 13, 2011)

Sometimes we have to face a real problem before we can understand to consequences.  I first off want to say I want the Congresswoman from Arizona to survive.  Let us think about a scenerio in a few years where a person is wounded in such a manner as her.  The cost is now and will be then unbelievably high and the odds of a complete recovery is low.  Does this "liberal desired" government health care just refuse benefits because of the cost and time?  Perhaps with her being a congresswoman she would recieve the benefits but would you?  Will some medical board decide the cost is just too great and allow you to die?  Please do not think that there will be a government medical board that will make the decision.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



And the point is that the the treasury acct. (filled by the tax payers) doesn't have enough money in it to cover all of its expenses.


----------



## sangha (Jan 13, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So are you saying the treasury is unsustainable?

Anyway, you're even wrong about this. The treasurys accts contain several trillions of dollars in notes, bonds, and other cash equivalents. It uses these assets as collateral for loans which it has the money to cover.

You really don't understand finance at all, do you? For example, if I made $50K last year and I spent $70K in the same time period (last year) does that mean I had to borrow money?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2011)

sangha said:


> You really don't understand finance at all, do you? For example, if I made $50K last year and I spent $70K in the same time period (last year) does that mean I had to borrow money?



Okay let's pretend you are government here and the 50k you 'made' is the total tax revenue in your acct (treasury) for the year and the 70k you 'spent' is the cost of the medical resources . With me so far? At the very least you still owe 20k. Where or when are you going to come up with the money?


----------



## sangha (Jan 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You really don't understand finance at all, do you? For example, if I made $50K last year and I spent $70K in the same time period (last year) does that mean I had to borrow money?
> ...



Savings or the selling of assets

If you don't make enough to cover your bills, you take money out of savings or you sell some assets. 

You have an extremely simplistic understanding of finance. You have demonstrated that you don't know how the govt finances its' programs and that you don't even understand the basics of finance by claiming the deficits MUST be financed with loans.

Worst of all, your arguing that the US can't afford a health care system that is less expensive. According to you, if we adopt a health care system that costs less, it will bankrupt us.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 14, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I claimed no such thing. I claimed loans were ONE way to pay off deficits. The point was you have to pay them somehow. Secondly, unless you plan on government taking over the resources and mandating what an entire industry can make, you are not making it cost less. You're simply shifting who is paying for it.

Back to our scenario; You're going to pay for the extra 20k with your savings and selling some assets, hmm? So you admit that you are spending more than you take in and you plan on making up the difference by selling your assets and going into your savings and you are telling me that is a sustainable pattern? Yeah, pretty sure it isn't me that doesn't understand finance.


----------



## sangha (Jan 14, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Sure you did, but I'm getting used to your denying what you said

And the govts of France and the US have plenty of assets, and plenty of savings. You are once again making stuff up with your talk of "taking over resources" when I spoke of the govt "selling off resources". Only an ignoramus like you would think "selling assets" means "taking over assets"

And yes, dipping into your savings in order to invest is a sustainable pattern. In fact, it is the only sustainable pattern. No nation has ever increased its' productivity without investing some of its assets. No nation has created a booming economy without some debt.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 14, 2011)

sangha said:


> Sure you did, but I'm getting used to your denying what you said



And I'm getting used to you putting words in my mouth.



sangha said:


> And the govts of France and the US have plenty of assets, and plenty of savings. You are once again making stuff up with your talk of "taking over resources" when I spoke of the govt "selling off resources". Only an ignoramus like you would think "selling assets" means "taking over assets"



Well if we have the savings and assets what is all the hub bub about our 14 trillion dollar debt? Let's just dip into the treasuries assets and savings you claim they have and be done with it. 

P.S. note the U.S. treasury seems to be in a bit of disagreement with you about whether their in debt or not.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/



sangha said:


> And yes, dipping into your savings in order to invest is a sustainable pattern. In fact, it is the only sustainable pattern. No nation has ever increased its' productivity without investing some of its assets. No nation has created a booming economy without some debt.



Over time no it isn't. If you spend more than you generate in income every year, forcing you to dip into your savings and asets every year, you eventaully will run out of saving and assets. Then you will be in debt for real.


----------



## wyomingpatriot (Jan 14, 2011)

What a video! classic republican propaganda. should be on fox news. having said that, this is why in the end the republican agenda will always win - by preying on a once legitimate fear, and distorting it out of proportion with scare tactics, but unfortunately, even in an age of free and instant press, most people respond to only fear and not logic and facts. obviously if you base your worldview on the ten minutes of fox news you watch every night, a video like this will appeal to you.
republicans are very good at taking an idea that's good for 1 percent of people and selling it as if it's good for the rest of the country, such as inventing the myth that of all the millions of uninsured americans, most of them CHOOSE to be uninsured. CHOOSE to be uninsured??? really? then the other half, who don't choose, are just deadbeats on welfare - also a myth, and a petty one at that. besides, those on welfare, are already on Medicaid! the affordability act is drafted to reach out to the majority of uninsured americans, such as a 20-something, working full time and going to school full time, who is supposed to afford insurance as it is how??  or those who are immobilized by the economy, for example. who could be so callous as to not want provisions such as staying on parent's insurance until one is 26? or no longer being denied coverage because of excessive cost or pre-existing conditions? Obamacare needs to be revised and expanded!


----------



## sangha (Jan 15, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you did, but I'm getting used to your denying what you said
> ...



I love the way you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of finance. Most people have debt. That doesn't mean that they don't have any savings. Every nation has debt. So does every state in the US. The US govt has spent more than it took in every year of my lifetime. And the economy has steadily grown, out pacing the growth in debt.

I regularly spend more than I make in a year. I borrow money from the bank, and then I lend it out at a higher interest rate. I spend more in one than I make in order to make more money the following year. I end up with a profit.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 15, 2011)

sangha said:


> I love the way you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of finance. Most people have debt. That doesn't mean that they don't have any savings. Every nation has debt. So does every state in the US. The US govt has spent more than it took in every year of my lifetime. And the economy has steadily grown, out pacing the growth in debt.





......and our economy just collapsed a couple years ago and millions of homes are being foreclosed and why? Because a lot of people took on more debt then they could handle.



sangha said:


> I regularly spend more than I make in a year. I borrow money from the bank, and then I lend it out at a higher interest rate. I spend more in one than I make in order to make more money the following year. I end up with a profit.




You claimed the treasury has savings and assets to make up for what it doesn't take in in tax revenue. So I ask again, if they do indeed have  those things, why don't we just pay off the 14 trillion dollar debt and be done with it? And you can drop the you know more about finance than me, you don't, that much is obvious. Yes I know debt in of itself is not terrible. Having some is fine, sometimes even necessary assuming you can pay it back faster than it accumulates. Problem with the U.S. budget and Frances's health care system is the debt is growing faster than their revenues. Yes you can dip into savings (though I would love for you to show evidence of the U.S. treasuries savings account) and assets but those are finite resources that you can't add to if your spending everything you take in on your bills.


----------



## sangha (Jan 15, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I love the way you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of finance. Most people have debt. That doesn't mean that they don't have any savings. Every nation has debt. So does every state in the US. The US govt has spent more than it took in every year of my lifetime. And the economy has steadily grown, out pacing the growth in debt.
> ...



No, the economy went south due to a lack of govt solutions (ie regulations)



> > I regularly spend more than I make in a year. I borrow money from the bank, and then I lend it out at a higher interest rate. I spend more in one than I make in order to make more money the following year. I end up with a profit.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the treasury has savings and assets to make up for what it doesn't take in in tax revenue. So I ask again, if they do indeed have  those things, why don't we just pay off the 14 trillion dollar debt and be done with it?



Because, they can either pay off debt (which produces nothing useful) or they can invest it and wait for the economy to grow enough to make the debt negligible which is how we became the richest nation in the world.

Once again, you are demonstrating your ignorance of finance.


----------



## Meister (Jan 15, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



It was those government "solutions" that created the real estate market mess.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 16, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



You're having a hard time keeping up with your own stories Sangha. First it was government doesn't really owe anyone because they pay everyone out of their savings and assets (still waiting for evidence btw, on how much of the tax revenue gets put into this savings account). Then you see we do actually run a 14 trillion dollar debt (not deficit) and your story changes to well, that 14 trillion dollars really is no big deal even that it's still increasing. 

And after all your wiggling you still don't understand how spending more than you take in, year after year after year, regardless of what department or country, is unsustainable. If it's sustainable why is France having to re-evalauate what it will pay for?


----------



## sangha (Jan 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You have been reduced to flat out lying

When did I ever say the govt doesn't really own anyone? When did I say $14T is "no big deal"?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > You're having a hard time keeping up with your own stories Sangha. First it was government doesn't really owe anyone because they pay everyone out of their savings and assets (still waiting for evidence btw, on how much of the tax revenue gets put into this savings account). Then you see we do actually run a 14 trillion dollar debt (not deficit) and your story changes to well, that 14 trillion dollars really is no big deal even that it's still increasing.
> ...



That would be here....



sangha said:


> Neither the DoD nor Frances' health care system borrow money to fund their deficits, so there is nothing to pay off over time. Once again, you're claiming that taxpayers are expecting a refund from the DoD.



.....and here......



sangha said:


> The DoD doesn't collect anything in taxes. The IRS does. The money goes into the treasury. The treasury GIVES, not loans, all $100 million to the DoD because that's what an act of congress orders them to do.



.....and here.



sangha said:


> They do run deficits. They don't have to borrow money to pay for them. Instead, the legislature passes an appropriations bill which instructs the treasury to supply the money. There is no loan. There is no credit card. There is no interest.



You're caught making shit up, deal with it. We used an imaginary figure of 100 million DoD budget and you said ALL 100 million of the budget gets paid through a combinatino of tax revenue, assets and savings appropriated from the treasury. Well if it's that true, why do we still have debt? Then you tried to weasel out of that one by claiming well we do have debt but it's okay because I just don't understand finance. Go back and look at the link I posted of the debt clock. It's going up just like the debt on the French health care system. Explain to me how that number can continue to increase and still be called sustainable. Explain to me how if there is no loaning as you state above, but we have assets and savings, we're just choosing not to use them, how and when our debts will get paid. Show what portion of the tax revenues go into this savings account. Surely it must be in here.......http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg......I do see paying interest on the debt as part of the budget, but no savings account deposits.


----------



## sangha (Jan 17, 2011)

So you think it's the DoD that owes $14Trillion!!! That's hilarious 

Even after I explained why the DoD doesnt owe a dime, you not only still think the DoD is financed with loans, but you also think the entire national debt of $14T is owed by the DoD





> you said ALL 100 million of the budget gets paid through a combinatino of tax revenue, assets and savings appropriated from the treasury



No, I didn't yo moron. I said the Treasury gives the DoD the entire $100M. I see you're still ignorant about how the DoD and the Treasury are financed. Here it is again. Maybe this time it will sink in

DoD = gets it's money from the Treasury
Treasury = gets its money from a wide variety of sources including taxes, fines, the sale of assets and loans



> It's going up just like the debt on the French health care system



The French health care system has no debt. It has a budget deficit. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you don't know the difference between a debt and a deficit



> Explain to me how that number can continue to increase and still be called sustainable.



I explained it already, but I'll explain it again in the hopes that it will eventually sink in

You can continuously increase your debt and keep it sustainable by increasing your wealth faster that you increase your debt. If my debt doubles every year while my welath quadruples, I will grow wealthier and wealthier.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2011)

sangha said:


> No, I didn't yo moron. I said the Treasury gives the DoD the entire $100M. I see you're still ignorant about how the DoD and the Treasury are financed. Here it is again. Maybe this time it will sink in.



The statements 'the DoD gets all of its budget' and 'the treasury pays all of the DoDs budget' are pragmatically different how exactly? Either way you're still telling me that whatever the DoDs budget is that's how much money the treasury gives them. Yet we have a 14 trillion dollar debt, so your telling me yes we have debt, but none if belongs to the DoD?



sangha said:


> The French health care system has no debt. It has a budget deficit. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you don't know the difference between a debt and a deficit



I think it's you who doesn't know the difference. Deficit is how much is borrowed in a year, debt is the accumulated deficit over several years. Pretending for a second this is the first year France had a deficit, the statements 'France ran a deficit of 9 billion dollars for its health care system' and 'France has 9 billion dollar debt for its health care system' are both true statements. Next year France is projecting a budget defecit of 11 billion. Assuming they were to pay off none of last years deficit they will have an accumulated debt of 20 billion dollars. Do YOU get it yet?




sangha said:


> I explained it already, but I'll explain it again in the hopes that it will eventually sink in
> 
> You can continuously increase your debt and keep it sustainable by increasing your wealth faster that you increase your debt. If my debt doubles every year while my welath quadruples, I will grow wealthier and wealthier.



Agreed. Except in the case of our government and Frances' health care system their debt increase is out pacing what they take in. You will note the debt clock for the U.S. is getting bigger, not smaller.


----------



## sangha (Jan 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > No, I didn't yo moron. I said the Treasury gives the DoD the entire $100M. I see you're still ignorant about how the DoD and the Treasury are financed. Here it is again. Maybe this time it will sink in.
> ...



The US govt has a debt. The DoD does not.



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The French health care system has no debt. It has a budget deficit. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, that you don't know the difference between a debt and a deficit
> ...



Then I'm sure you can post something that proves that Frances health care system has a debt. I'll wait



> > Explain to me how that number can continue to increase and still be called sustainable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed. Except in the case of our government and Frances' health care system their debt increase is out pacing what they take in. You will note the debt clock for the U.S. is getting bigger, not smaller.[/QUOTE]

No, frances health care system has no debt. The french treasury gives them the money to pay all their bills. The french treasury has the debt

How many times do I need to explain this before it sinks in? These govt agencies are funded in full by their treasuries.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2011)

sangha said:


> The US govt has a debt. The DoD does not.



You just told me the treasury has all the money DoD needs and gives it to them. How is it then that the U.S. govt has debt if they have all of the money to give each dept? Newsflash, the only way you can have debt is if you owe someone. That is the definition of debt. Therefore someone is borrowing money, in our case probably the treasury.




sangha said:


> Then I'm sure you can post something that proves that Frances health care system has a debt. I'll wait



Deficit is how much is borrowed in a year, debt is the accumulated deficit over several years. Pretending for a second this is the first year France had a deficit, the statements 'France ran a deficit of 9 billion dollars for its health care system' and 'France has a 9 billion dollar debt for its health care system' are both true statements. Next year France is projecting a budget defecit of 11 billion for its health care system. Assuming they were to pay off none of last years deficit they will have an accumulated debt of 20 billion dollars. Do YOU get it yet?


----------



## sangha (Jan 17, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The US govt has a debt. The DoD does not.
> ...



Facts, bern. Facts

I know you don't like the facts, can't remember the facts, or understand the facts, but it's still a fact





> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Then I'm sure you can post something that proves that Frances health care system has a debt. I'll wait
> ...



Wrong. Deficits are not how much is borrowed in a year. Once again, the DoD has a deficit for more than two centuries. It has no debt




> debt is the accumulated deficit over several years.



No, debt is the accumulation of loans that have not been paid back (plus the interest)
Debt | Define Debt at Dictionary.com



> Pretending for a second this is the first year France had a deficit, the statements 'France ran a deficit of 9 billion dollars for its health care system' and 'France has a 9 billion dollar debt for its health care system' are both true statements.



IOW, you don't have any proof that frances' health care system has a debt, so you'll just repeat the claim and pretend you have proof



> Next year France is projecting a budget defecit of 11 billion for its health care system. Assuming they were to pay off none of last years deficit they will have an accumulated debt of 20 billion dollars. Do YOU get it yet?


[/quote]


Assuming? You do a lot of that.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 17, 2011)

sangha said:


> Facts, bern. Facts
> 
> I know you don't like the facts, can't remember the facts, or understand the facts, but it's still a fact



Some of them are facts. Unfortunately for you they are facts that can't occur at the same time. Our government can't be in debt AND have a treasury department that always happens to have the money to fully fund every depts. budget. 







sangha said:


> Wrong. Deficits are not how much is borrowed in a year. Once again, the DoD has a deficit for more than two centuries. It has no debt



Yes deficits are how much you borrow in a year. A deficit strictly speaking is a shortage. In this case of money. You can word it however you think you need to, we'll just say you have some interesting accounting. Ultimately the DoD spends more than what the treasury can provide, putting the treasury and the government in debt. 




sangha said:


> IOW, you don't have any proof that frances' health care system has a debt, so you'll just repeat the claim and pretend you have proof




You mean like you, who has not been able to show how our 14 trillion dollar and growing debt can be paid and why it constitutes sustainability? That kind of proof? Time will tell ultimately and time is already showing that at least what France originally said they would fund was not sustainable as they are in the process of making cuts. Apparently deficits are a bigger deal to them then they are to you.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5863CN20090907


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Facts, bern. Facts
> ...



So now you're changing your story from the DoD is unsustainable to the US treasury is unsustainable?

Fine. Explain how the US treasury, which has been operating for over two centuries, is unsustainable. Please provide some evidence from real life to support your inane argument




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Deficits are not how much is borrowed in a year. Once again, the DoD has a deficit for more than two centuries. It has no debt
> ...



No, deficits are not how much you borrow in a year. Here you go, moron

Deficit | Define Deficit at Dictionary.com


> the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount.
> 2. the amount by which expenditures or liabilities exceed income or assets.
> 3. a lack or shortage; deficiency.
> 4. a disadvantage, impairment, or handicap: The team's major deficit is its poor pitching.
> 5. a loss, as in the operation of a business.



As you can see, there's nothing about borrowing money involved in a deficit. Borrowing money is just one way of dealing with a deficit. As I explained, there are other ways, such as going into savings, selling assets, and increasing income faster than debt




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > IOW, you don't have any proof that frances' health care system has a debt, so you'll just repeat the claim and pretend you have proof
> ...



I don't have to prove sustainability. The Treasury has proven it's sustainability by sustaining itself for more than two centuries.

So once again, I will ask you to grow some balls and please explain how the treasury, which has sustained itself for more than 200 years, is unsustainable and please provide some real world evidence to back up your claims. ALso, please try to leave your baseless assumptions on the side. Try to use facts instead.

Otherwise, you're just another wingnut with claims you cant back up.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I would say the treasuries 14 trillion dollar debt and growing would be fairly compelling evidence. That is the definiton of unsustainable. It spends more than it takes in, year in and year out.  

I already proved France's system isn't sustainable (or rather France proved its system is not sustainable).


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



You've said many things. Most of them have been wrong.

And you haven't proven anything about anything unless you think the fact that Frances' health care system is still around proves that it is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> You've said many things. Most of them have been wrong.
> 
> And you haven't proven anything about anything unless you think the fact that Frances' health care system is still around proves that it is unsustainable



Even by your incorrect definition of sustainable, France's health care system would be defined as unsustainable. Their health care system is not going to exist in the same state that it did before. If you read the article I just posted you will see what their health care administrators are considering cutting. They are not going to fund things at levels they have before. 

You hold up government run systems as some beacon of great health care citing stats like America being first in spending on health care as a percent of GDP. Well guess who's second on that list.


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You've said many things. Most of them have been wrong.
> ...



All programs change over time. SS has changed. Our nuclear weapons program has changed. Our agricultural programs have changed

By your definition, every program is unsustainable.

You have also argued that increasing the program makes it unsustainable. Now you're arguing that cutting the program shows it's unsustainable. You said if spending kept increasing, the program would be unsustainable. Now, you're arguing that the lowered spending makes it unsustainable


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 18, 2011)

Nighthawk62 said:


> *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4f-rftBek8



Complete bullshit. Do medicare and medicaid patients have to go to a DMV like agency for health care? NO...they go to their doctors, just like people with coverage from the insurance cartels. 

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> All programs change over time. SS has changed. Our nuclear weapons program has changed. Our agricultural programs have changed
> 
> By your definition, every program is unsustainable.
> 
> You have also argued that increasing the program makes it unsustainable. Now you're arguing that cutting the program shows it's unsustainable. You said if spending kept increasing, the program would be unsustainable. Now, you're arguing that the lowered spending makes it unsustainable



The only thing happenig here Sangha is you not listening. I guess the word sustainability means something different in your world. In ours it means to maintain at a certain level. France wasn't able to to fund their system at a certain level, by definition making it unsustainable.

I have never argued that increasing a program makes the program unsustainable. I arged that ever growing debt is unsustainable. 

Take your argument and apply it to your personal finances. You have argued debt is okay and whatever debt you have you will make up for with your savings and assets. Play that out with your pesonal finances and tell me that you are a self sustaining person. Tell me you can spend more than you make year in and year out infinitum. You said you would dip into your savings and assets to pay the difference. How long can you do that spending more than you take in in income every year. The fact that you spend more than you take in would mean you have little if anything to replenish your savings and assets so it would stand to reason that those are eventually going to run out. Even if they didn't you would have to admit it is hardly efficient personal financing to have to do that.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Nighthawk62 said:
> 
> 
> > *Be careful what you wish for. Check this out!*
> ...



Who says  a free market system requires the existance of insurance companies? And if you think insurance companies in the U.S. exist in a free market, you're delusional. It's easy to say it hasn't worked when it's never been really tried. Are you telling me you wouldn't like more customization out of your health care? That you wouldn't like to decide exactly what you want to pay for? That you wouldn't like to be able to buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want? The reason you can't do that now is not because of the free market. Its because the market is decidedly not free. You don't have all the options available to you provider wise because insurance can't be sold across state lines. That would be a government regulation. I can't decide I how want my plan structured, either. Maybe I just want it to cover catastrophic illness. Or maybe I agree to pay for my presciptions and 20% of doctor visits or any other combination you can think of, but I can't do that. Why? Not because the providers in make believe free market are too stupid to offer customers what they want, but because government tells them what they have to cover.


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Nighthawk62 said:
> ...



bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims. 

He is deluded he thinks the insurance corps will let the consumers decide how their plan is "structured". He is so deluded he thinks he's not allowed to choose a plan that pays for his prescriptions and 20% of doctor visits.

But then again, he's the same guy who thinks a deficit is the amount of money you borrow in one year


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims.



Do you realize that pretty much everyone else here can see how deliberately obtuse you're being and your truly ridiculous that makes you look? 



sangha said:


> He is deluded he thinks the insurance corps will let the consumers decide how their plan is "structured". He is so deluded he thinks he's not allowed to choose a plan that pays for his prescriptions and 20% of doctor visits.



Most companies survive by doing what their customers want. And I don't think I'm the only person who wants more say over what he's paying for.


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bern80 is so deluded he thinks people should be allowed to "buy insurance from anyone or anywhere you want" including your Aunt Sophie. In wingnut world, there's no reason to make sure the insurer can actually pay the claims.
> ...



Ummm, most insurers will let you decide what is covered and what is not, how much they will cover (in %), the co-pays and deductibles, etc...

And if they don't, it's their choice not to. I guess you want a "govt solution" to force the insurers to offer plans that you approve of.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Umm most people aren't buying insurance on an individual basis. It's provided through their employer and none I have worked for offered much in the way of choice. It's either high deductible or low deductible.

But nevermind that, I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does. I'm still waiting for you tell me how a system that has to cut back on what it provides because it ran a deficit can be defined as sustainable.


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So now you want the govt to force your employer to offer plans that you like? So much for your opposition to "govt solutions"

BTW, did you know that you don't have to buy insurance through your employer? Did you know that you can still purchase insurance on your own? No one is stopping you.

So go out and spend your money on a plan that covers only 20% of your medical expenses, if you want and stop whining about problems that don't exist


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Nighthawk62 said:
> ...



The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio' 

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

If your main concern is being able to buy across state lines, then you better write you Congressman and Senators and demand they don't allow Republicans to repeal the current law. The new law allows buying across state lines. AND it also requires every insurance cartel to spend 80 cents of every dollar on treatment and care.


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

delete


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...




People vote with their wallets Sangha. If such a better option existed, more people would do it.

Still waiting on the folliwing by the way...I'm still waiting for you tell me how it would be sustainable for you and your household to spend money the same way government does


----------



## sangha (Jan 18, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the DoD, which has been operating at a deficit for more than 200 years, is unsustainable. You keep saying it, but for some reason, you won't explain how a program that is sustaining itself is unsustainable.

I can't imagine why


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2011)

sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:
			
		

> And I'm still waiting for you to tell me how the DoD, which has been operating at a deficit for more than 200 years, is unsustainable. You keep saying it, but for some reason, you won't explain how a program that is sustaining itself is unsustainable.
> 
> I can't imagine why



Sorry Sangha. Much as you would like it to be so, the fact that something exists doesn't mean it is sustainable. You can play games all you want and say the DoD has deficit but it isn't in debt all you want. I would imagine the treasury does give them everything they need each year. We know however the treasury does not take in as much as it gives out. It has to make up the difference somehow. Savings and assets you say. Okay, maybe, though still have yet to say how much  of our tax revenue goes into this make believe savings account or some part of it in the budget. Regardless if you spend more than you take in each year you're not going to be able to replenish that savings and/or assets so that's going to run out eventually. We probably have otherwise we wouldn't have debt. If the government was able to stay level budget wise through a combination of tax revenue, savings and assets it would not be in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. That leaves loans, which is really what is going on. Perhaps you have heard the rumblings about how much of our debt is owned by China? As I said before you can't have it both ways. You claim this debt is no big deal, then claim you never said it wasn't a big deal meaning you must think it is, but still maintain it's sustainable. Again sorry, you can't have it both ways.

There is a very simple way to test if you're right you know. I challenge you to a little experiment. You manage your finances the way government does for a few year. The various ways you say government spends money can very easily be applied to your own household. You're the treasury dept. for the house. You can pretend your grocery budget is the DoD. If you go over your grocery budget you may have to put some of it on your credit card, you would essentially be borrowing money from the credit card company and now you (the treasury) owe them. Or if you felt like it you could dip into your savings account or sell a car or something if you're coming up short, the same as what you say the treasury does. All the while you have to make sure you spend 25% more than your income every year. Got it? Just spend 25% more than you make every year for the next few years. Make up the difference however you need to, sell some assets, put it on credit, finance things, whatever you need to do. The only think you can't do is bring in more than you spend so your spending habits accuratley reflect that of government. Then come back in a few years and tell us all what you have left for assest and how much is left in your savings account from spending more than you take in. Deal?


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sorry bern, but the fact that you say it's unsustainable does not make it so

I have a challenge for you. Instead of posting your fictional scenarios. why don't you try to back up your claim that the DoD is unsustainable with some evidence from the real world?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha;3224te=Bern80;3222429 said:
> ...



I think that my challenge went unaccepted is all the proof I need.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

You think a deficit is a debt, so it's obvious you don't need much proof. In fact, you don't need any


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> You think a deficit is a debt, so it's obvious you don't need much proof. In fact, you don't need any



What was that? You don't want to try to run your household like the government runs itself? Why is that? I thought the way the treasury department did it was sustainable.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You think a deficit is a debt, so it's obvious you don't need much proof. In fact, you don't need any
> ...



I should have known that existence is proof that something is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



It isn't. You're not very bright are you? Something can exist that is not sustainable. That being true, does it mean that something is UNsustainable if it exists? Of course not. But then again your intellectualy dishonesty is pretty much unaparalleled.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Of course. I should have said that 200 years of existence is proof that something is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



The DoD is sustained through the treasury to cover it's deficits.....the treasury borrows money to do so, which is shown to be unsustainable by the fact that our 14 trillion dollar debt is increasing. Clear enough for you?


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I should have known!! The 200+ years of the treasurys' existence proves that it is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Now you're just turning into a skipping record. You contending that the DoD is sustainable is basically like a kid saying his allowance must be sustainable because he keeps getting it and ignoring the fact that his mommy is borrowing money to give him said allowance.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I should have realized that someday, the treasurys' mommy is going to stop giving an allowance to the treasury


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



The 'treasury's mommy' (John Q Taxpayer) will always give it money. That doesn't change the fact that our various governmental agencies are demanding more from it than what it takes in, forcing it to borrow the difference.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I should have realized that the 200+ years of govt borrowing proves that our govt is unsustainable


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Well if it is sustainable as you indeed contend why are so chicken shit to try it in your personal life?


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Who says I'm not?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I guess I would hope you are not so far in debt that you're only paying a fraction of the interest on your debt, like government.


----------



## sangha (Jan 19, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Both the US govt and I pay the interest on our loans when it's due. That's why we both have sterling credit ratings


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Good for you. I hope that's some solace to both of you when you realize you owe so much money that it's going to be some time before you even get to start paying back the actual money you borrowed. But I'm sure you're smarter than government and haven't decided to unneccessarily continue adding to your debt right (debt you admit you're not actually paying)? I assume, unlike government, you are also smart enough to pay off your interest faster than it's compounding, right? (though I shouldn't assume much of anything where your financial intelligence is concerned).


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 19, 2011)

Problems with socialized medicine.

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

Now were we to adapt one of the systems in this presentation, consider the social implications. Note that no one goes bankrupt because of medical bills in these nations. Think of how this would ruin your day when you could not feel superior to the family being turned out into the street on your block because the daddy had the audacity to have his factory shut down and moved overseas, and he was stupid enough to let someone in the family get sick after that.

Think of the enjoyment you would miss watching an old couple trying to decide between food and the drugs that keep them alive. 

Ah yes, the problems of socialized medicine.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> Problems with socialized medicine.
> 
> FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS
> 
> ...



You lefties keep proving my point. There are all kinds of variables that determine whether a health care system is a quality system. You libs define a quality health care system by just one of those variables. Cost to the consumer. Low cost to the consumer = good health care system in the world of the lib. Nothing else matters.


----------



## peach174 (Jan 19, 2011)

Nope sure would not want to fix the real problems would they.
Like Torte reform,being able to keep your Insurance when you move or quit your job, 
Anything is better than another Government run program. But that is the Libs world.Only Government can fix everything (must control the masses) nevermind the constitution.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Problems with socialized medicine.
> ...



There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.



I don't have a problem addressing that issue. But preventing 45,000 deaths does not require a new massive government beauracracy. Preventing 45,000 deaths does not require making 330 million Americans buy health insurance.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.
> ...



You are being lied to by Republicans. It does not create any new bureaucracies. The current private insurance system is not being replaced. Republicans made a collective decision that they would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obamas Waterloo  just as healthcare was Clintons in 1994. 

The individual mandate is a Republican idea. It's genesis was the Heritage Foundation during the Clinton health care debates. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.

Len Nichols of the New America Foundation: "the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

The 'Free-Rider Effect'

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s  when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system  "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

Republican, Democratic Bills Strikingly Similar

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors  Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri  remain in the Senate today.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Democrats basically passed the 1993 Republican health care proposal. That includes a BIG Republican idea...THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

Chart: Comparing Health Reform Bills: Democrats and Republicans 2009, Republicans 1993 - Kaiser Health News


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Who or what party came up with the mandate doesn't change the fact that it's unconstitutional. Those smart guys mentioned who wanted to figure out how to close the gap are probably right from a practical stand point. But they are wrong from a principle stand point and some of you really need to start seeing the forest for the trees and the kind genearl precedent it sets to grant government the authority to make the citizenry.

I'm a libertarian, not a Republican and not a conservative. So you're not going to be able to play gotcha with me by pointing out who came up with these ideas and implying I'm required to agree with them because of the side of the aisle you think I'm on.  NOTHING trumps individual liberty. Mandating that everyone purchase health insurance may be the best way to close the gap, but the simple fact is it takes away freedom and is not an authority granted to the fed by the constitution. So that option is off the table and these great minds are going to have to figure out what the next best option that comports with the constitution and sustains individual liberty is.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.



Hey you're catching on. Good for you. But why would I need to sign a do not treat form for not buying health insurance? Couldn't I just pay for it if I wanted to? Don't I and the hospital have the right to negotiate payment for services? You would be suprised (though you shouldn't be) how willing accounts recieable at a hospital is willing to deal directly with the customer. It makes there jobs 10 times easier than dealing with insurance companies. So much so that procedures cost less generally if you pay the provider directly rather than having it billed through insurance.

This is exactly what I mean when I say you people don't see the forest for the trees. You are so used to the way things are that you assume an insurance model is the only way health care services can possibly be paid for. Think outside of the box. A 20-30 year old could do better financially by sticking money in HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses. Insurance is not the only way.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Here would be my answer to you libertarians, who didn't exist in the days of our founders. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you must sign a do not treat contract. If you get in a car accident, or contract a serious illness, then you live or die on your own. If you want personal responsibility, you GET personal responsibility...the good or the bad.
> ...



The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...



Hasn't been my experience and I use more medical services than most. When I get a bill from the hospital for the difference of what my isnurance covered I will routinely contact the hospital and ask them if I can split the bill into multipe payments. They've never had an issue doing that for me. Didn't even charge me a late fee or interest. 

Assuming you do go to the hospital unconscious what exactly do they do? Not treat you till they've found your insurance card in your wallet? I don't think so?


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The reason you must sign a contract...if you are unconscious, you can't negotiate a price. Hey maybe in the next life. You will be surprised how UNwilling hospitals and doctors are in negotiating services. You are a Utopian libertarian...
> ...



When anyone goes to the hospital now, they are treated. If they don't have insurance, that cost is passed on to you and me. It costs every insured citizen over $1000 per year added to our insurance premiums.

Forget the insurance card. I have a better way. I'd brand 'Do not treat until you get your $$$' into your fucking foreheads, then the ambulance driver can quickly move to someone worth saving.

The purpose of the individual mandate is to prevent people from buying insurance after they become ill or injured. The free riders. To accumulate enough money in an 'HSA or some other interest bearing account to pay for the medical expenses' that would be able to cover a major medical emergency would cost more than an insurance policy. Very few people would do it. So that is why the hospital needs to quickly identify a way of knowing to let you die.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




A hospital can't ask for money up front whether you have insurance or not so that's a mute and rather stupid point. I'm not trying to get out of paying for being treated here. Believe it or not we can have a system that holds people financially responsible for the services they use and not require everyone to buy health insurance.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 20, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I hope the right keeps pushing to end the individual mandate, because if repealed, it will lead to the only viable option...a single payer government run program.

If you really want to learn how the insurance cartels work, here's an interview with an executive at CIGNA for 15 years.

Profits before patients


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



only viable option? You're more close minded than I thought.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 21, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I will restate:

FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.

The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'

The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.

Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.

Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 21, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What kind of shitty immature attack is that?  It makes no difference what party was around during the time of the founding fathers.  You weren't around at the time of the founding fathers so I guess you don't have any rights either....If you knew your history you'd know that the two parties founded from the signing of the Constitution were the Federalist and the DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY.  If you knew any more history, you'd know that the Democratic and Republican have "swapped" values and supporters numerous times in their existence....For example: During the civil war, Democrats were primarily supported in the South while the North primarily supported the Republican party.  Now it's reversed. 

Basic fact is that the current health care law is unconstitutional...  I'm not saying that the health care system doesn't need regulation and some fixing, but completely overhauling the system is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## BrianH (Jan 21, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



If close minded is not a liberal trait, then why is it always "all or nothing" with the left.  They can't just change something a little; they're gonna flip a whole system whether or not the public agrees with it or not, and everyone else can "suck it."

I am about 99% sure there was plenty of corruption going on when the healthcare bill passed the senate.   3 weeks before vote, the Dems didn't have enough votes.  They were 10 or 15 votes short.  Then 2 weeks before they were 9 or 10 short.  1 week before they were 4 votes short.  Then, by golly, they had enough votes to pass it!  If that's not corruption of the system I don't know what is.  They either slipped funds to states of the hold-outs or they black-mailed them into voting for the bill.  (And this is totally excluding the fact that the majority of Americans opposed it.)  

You want to talk about the founding fathers...here's what Tommy Jefferson says about welfare. (which is what this healthcare bill is)
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.



FACT....no nation has ever tried.....including ours.



Bfgrn said:


> The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'



They aren't any different than any other private business. No shit they have to make money sherlock. If they can't make money they can't stay and business and they can't cover people.



Bfgrn said:


> The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.
> 
> Those two opposing goals will NEVER allow any 'free market' solution to benefit both.



Again that's the same stakes as any other consumer/business relationship. It isn't about both sides getting exactly what they want. Any business would love to be able to make more money off its product and any consumer would love to pay less for it. It's about both sides deciding what they can live with giving up.

You are still showing your narrow mindedness by claiming there are no free market solutions that benefit both. Here's a crazy idea; how about figuring out a way a to reduce the cost of services from the providers so people could pay them directly? That would be a free market solution. That is unless what you're really saying is that people shouldn't have to pay anything for live saving treatment.....



Bfgrn said:


> Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.



No. Your elitist liberalism requires you to think that anyone who doesn't think like you is a member of the right and close minded. I am far from a member of the right and my concern is making the system better in a way that doesn't set a precedent for essentially unlimited government power. Anyone who objectively looks at the ways to do that should be able to see a few obvious things. 1) the existence of the insurance model inherently raises the cost of services. In fact any intermidiary, private health insurance company or 
government that is handling paying the service providers is going to have that result. Why? it's basic human nature. The less directly the cost effects you, the less you are going to care about it. 

The TRUTH? If YOU were interested in the truth you would see a governmet solution has as many problems as our current model.


----------



## sangha (Jan 23, 2011)

BrianH said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



The fact that the reference was to libertarianism itself, and not any political party (ie the Libertarian Party) went right over your head. You don't see the absurdity of holding the opinion that the Founders agreed with a philosophy that they didn't know existed either. If you knew your history, you'd have known that

And whether it's constitutional is up to the courts. Your certainty reveals nothing but your detachment from the facts


----------



## sangha (Jan 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > FACT...no nation has ever built a successful health care system based on a free market. Because none of the incentives benefit both the patient and the insurance provider.
> ...



That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.



> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The insurance cartels in America exist in a constructed market BY the insurance cartels FOR the insurance cartels. They are controlled by Wall Street shareholders who severely penalize any company that pays out TOO MUCH $$$ for medical coverage to the policy holders (you and me). It is called 'medical loss ratio'
> ...



The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)



> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > The American people are STAKEholders. Our very lives are our stake. And the insurance cartels stake is less profit to keep you or me alive if we come down with a life threatening illness that requires expensive treatments and care.
> ...



Only a wingnut would think that exchanging ones' health so an insurance corp can profit is The Right Thing to do. 



> You are still showing your narrow mindedness by claiming there are no free market solutions that benefit both. Here's a crazy idea; how about figuring out a way a to reduce the cost of services from the providers so people could pay them directly? That would be a free market solution. That is unless what you're really saying is that people shouldn't have to pay anything for live saving treatment.....




And bern shows his narrow mindedness by continously insisting that mythical free market solutions exist, even though he can't name one single one. In wingnut world, the incentives of the free market disappear as soon as the govt issues one regulation. In wingnut world, they just know that providers can't and don't find ways to reduce costs, but that they just can't reduce them quick enough to compensate for the high costs of new technology. The wingnuts also know that those same providers would find costs saving IF ONLY THE GOVT LET THEM.

That's why bern has to make up stuff about what others say with his "That is unless what you're really saying...." bern loves to tell others what they're really saying, and he gets it wrong, even when it's clear

He's saying, we can cover everyone for far less that we currently pay. Several nations have already proven this by covering their entire nation at a lower cost while providing higher quality care than the US does.



> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Why am I not surprised you ignored the interview with a 15 year health insurance executive? Close minded it not a liberal trait, it resides on the right. You are not interested in truth, because it will require you to think instead of emote.
> ...



And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.




> The TRUTH? If YOU were interested in the truth you would see a governmet solution has as many problems as our current model.



If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)


----------



## sangha (Jan 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Problems with socialized medicine.
> ...



bern is so uninterested in the truth that he will continue to repeat this lie in order to pretend that the US has the best health care and nations with single payer systems have bad health care systems. bern must be so proud that our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!

The SOCIALIST "govt solution" used by the SOCIALIST govt of Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price. bern likes paying twice as much for inferior health care.


----------



## sangha (Jan 23, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > There is only one 'variable' that determine whether a health care system is a quality system...the HUMAN outcome. If 45,000 people die every year because they don't have access to affordable health care, that system is a MASSIVE failure. Any nation that calls itself 'moral' would not allow that. It is equal to the moral bankruptcy of the Saddam Husseins' of the world.
> ...



It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth



Other than the minor detail of it being essentially a monopoly. Those always work out well for the consumer.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.



The free market is nothing more than an agreement between two parties for service. You're right a free market solution is not going to treat people that can't pay for service. Even a fool like you ought to see why that can't work out very well for those providing the service. So there needs to be some form of government solution that takes care of those that cant help themselves. I don't have a problem with that. 



sangha said:


> The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)



Of course it doesn't have to be. Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is. They have a financial incentive to do things as efficiently as possible. Government does not (cause deficits are no big deal). They establish the a true market value for service that is typically lower than government, because government payment of anything is a subsidy which inflates the price of services.  



sangha said:


> Only a wingnut would think that exchanging ones' health so an insurance corp can profit is The Right Thing to do.



And only selfish libs think they are entitled to life saving treatment, but the person who provided it is not entitled to be compensated for it. 






sangha said:


> And bern shows his narrow mindedness by continously insisting that mythical free market solutions exist, even though he can't name one single one. In wingnut world, the incentives of the free market disappear as soon as the govt issues one regulation. In wingnut world, they just know that providers can't and don't find ways to reduce costs, but that they just can't reduce them quick enough to compensate for the high costs of new technology. The wingnuts also know that those same providers would find costs saving IF ONLY THE GOVT LET THEM.
> 
> 
> That's why bern has to make up stuff about what others say with his "That is unless what you're really saying...." bern loves to tell others what they're really saying, and he gets it wrong, even when it's clear



Let's see what we have here. A statement saying I put words in your mouth, preceded by a statement putting words in my mouth. You may now add hypocrite to your many distinctions.

Clarify it for me then. What should the avg. life saving trip to the emergency cost you?



sangha said:


> He's saying, we can cover everyone for far less that we currently pay. Several nations have already proven this by covering their entire nation at a lower cost while providing higher quality care than the US does.



Again lower cost TO THE CONSUMER. Since the consumers don't want to pay with the service providers are demanding the difference is subsidized by the government and the government is finding out in nations like France it doesn't have the money to cover the difference, which is why they are having to cut back on the oh so wonderful benefits your utopia single payer system provides. 





sangha said:


> And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.



Because whether a system is public or private is of course the only variable that determines the cost of services. 




sangha said:


> If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)



Of course that's what you think. You think that because being a typical liberal you of course will assume no responsibility for your role in the problem. The individuals role in the problem where this nation is concerned is that most of us are not very healthy. Not because of our health care system, but because of the health choices we make. You're being truly naive if you don't think that plays a role in how much our nation spens on health care. It's also another reason why it probably isn't a great idea to absolve people of even more responsibility for taking care of themselves.

I have never insisted that France's health care system costs more than hours. All I have maintained is that they are having difficulty sustaining a level of service with their model.  A model you believe to be the cure all to our health care issues. Health care costs are not rising in just the U.S. They're rising for everyone, including France.


----------



## sangha (Jan 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > It's a good thing single payer requires neither of those things, not that you care about the truth
> ...



I'm not surprised to see you confuse single payer with a monopoly. After all, you're the one who confused deficits with debt.

SP systems have many providers. There's only one payer, but many providers. We'll just add "monopoly" to the List of Things Bern Does Not Understand


----------



## sangha (Jan 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > That's just not true, but we're used to nonsense coming from the right. If a nation tries to build a successful health care system, then by definition, it is a "govt solution" and not a "free market". The fact is, the free market has no interest in providing health care to all of our citizens. The free market only treats those it can make a profit on. A call for free market solutions is nothing more than a call to let poor people die.
> ...



Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The right assumes, incorrectly, that health care must be a "private business" (The wingnuts also lke to make up terms when they argue)
> ...



Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does. 

For example, even you admit that the govt is best suited for providing care to the poor....except when you deny it, as you just did (ie "Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is")

The facts clearly show that govt run Single Payer systems provide better care than the private market can, and they do so at a lower cost.



> And only selfish libs think they are entitled to life saving treatment, but the person who provided it is not entitled to be compensated for it.



Since you're happy to lie about what you think, it's not surprising to see you lie about what others think.




> Let's see what we have here. A statement saying I put words in your mouth, preceded by a statement putting words in my mouth. You may now add hypocrite to your many distinctions.
> 
> Clarify it for me then. What should the avg. life saving trip to the emergency cost you?



So after telling us what "libs" thinks, you think you have any credibility to complain about others putting words in your mouth? 





> Again lower cost TO THE CONSUMER. Since the consumers don't want to pay with the service providers are demanding the difference is subsidized by the government and the government is finding out in nations like France it doesn't have the money to cover the difference, which is why they are having to cut back on the oh so wonderful benefits your utopia single payer system provides.



bern can't help but repeat his lie, so I'll repeat the truth:

The French health care system has LOWER COSTS FOR EVERYONE and provides better quality health care





> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > And yet, despite your "persuasive" argument, you can't identify one nation with a single payer system that has seen its cost rise faster than costs have risen in the US. For all your blather about how a single payer increases costs, every single nation with a single payer plan pays less for health care than the US.
> ...



bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > If you were interested in the truth, you would see that those nations with a single payer solution have fewer problems and provide better care at a lower cost for ALL their citizens. Since you're not interested in the truth, you will continue to insist that Frances' health care system cost more than the US' and that single payer systems cost more than what we have now in the US (ie the most expensive health care system in the history of the world)
> ...



No, that is what I know. That's why I can name examples and it's why you can't.



> You think that because being a typical liberal you of course will assume no responsibility for your role in the problem. The individuals role in the problem where this nation is concerned is that most of us are not very healthy. Not because of our health care system, but because of the health choices we make. You're being truly naive if you don't think that plays a role in how much our nation spens on health care. It's also another reason why it probably isn't a great idea to absolve people of even more responsibility for taking care of themselves.
> 
> I have never insisted that France's health care system costs more than hours. All I have maintained is that they are having difficulty sustaining a level of service with their model.  A model you believe to be the cure all to our health care issues. Health care costs are not rising in just the U.S. They're rising for everyone, including France.



The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Well what would a monopoy of the insurance industry be? It would be just one health insurance company that was the only provider of plans. Thus they would be the only payer of services. They would be the SINGLE payer, smart guy. The only difference between that monoply and a single payer system is instead the single payer is government. So yes you idiot it is a monopoly. Of course there are still many providers of services under SP. there are still all kinds of hospitals. Under SP the only 'insurance company' that pays those providers is government. THAT is a monopoly on health care coverage, idiot.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"



I don't really see what the point would be in me lieing about what I believe. I know you like to repeat that a lot, but it's a nonsensical argument. My belief is pretty simple. The government should play a role in health care for the purpose of helping those that can not help themselves. That is a legitimate role of government in any society. Where health care is concerned that goal does NOT require that government take over the entire industry, be the single payer, or make everyone buy health insurance. What other UHC countries have shown is is that they simply can't afford to do that. They let the citizens pay what they think is fair. The providers tell government what their services cost and low and behold government can't afford it.




sangha said:


> Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does.



Then go have  debate with the wingnuts. I have never contended that there aren't some things government should and does do a better job of providing. Providing services to people that can't pay for them would be one of them. 




sangha said:


> The facts clearly show that govt run Single Payer systems provide better care than the private market can, and they do so at a lower cost.



No the facts don't show that. Private health insurance is not the only free market means of paying for healthcare there is. There are many other models that simply have not been tried, thus you are in no position to state that the free market is incapable of doing a better job than government.



sangha said:


> bern can't help but repeat his lie, so I'll repeat the truth:
> 
> The French health care system has LOWER COSTS FOR EVERYONE and provides better quality health care



Everyone huh? How does it reduce the cost of an x-ray machine. How does reduce the cost of drug R&D.



sangha said:


> bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.



My god your reading comprehension is poor. Either that or you just don't get sarcasm when you hear it. 





sangha said:


> The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.



And their costs are going up, and what government will pay for is going down. They have the 2nd most expensive system in the world idiot. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of government solutions.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> ...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!
> 
> ...Cuba provides better health care than the US does, and at less that half the price.



One lie leads to another for you.  Of course, the following two statements you made conflict one another.  Makes it easy to point out compulsive liars.  So, which is it?  Is our system the SAME LEVEL of care or does Cuba provide BETTER care?

Still claiming that others are living in wingnut world.  From my perspective, the one living in wingnut world is yourself, since you seem to think we can make an apples to apples comparison between Cuba's health care system and our own.


----------



## 30x90 (Jan 25, 2011)

It's over 2000 pages.

NO ONE knows what's really in it or how it will "work". Only the blindest partisan would claim that it is "good" for the country.


----------



## sangha (Jan 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?

A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.

So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly


----------



## sangha (Jan 25, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern is so dishonest, he can't admit that he has denounced "govt solutions" for health care. Now, he's going to pretend that he likes "govt solutions"
> ...



bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care 

And he has to lie again about the premiums in UHC nations (ie "They let the citizens pay what they think is fair")



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wingnuts have to believe this is true. There is no force strong enough, and no fact clear enough, to convince the narrow minded wingnuts that govt does some things much better than the private sector does.
> ...



I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"




> No the facts don't show that. Private health insurance is not the only free market means of paying for healthcare there is. There are many other models that simply have not been tried, thus you are in no position to state that the free market is incapable of doing a better job than government.



Actually, the facts show that EVERY nation with UHC pays less for health care than the US, and many provide better care. 

And there are no untried "models". Once again, you're relying on myths and not facts. That's why you can't actually cite any of these mythical "models"



> Everyone huh? How does it reduce the cost of an x-ray machine. How does reduce the cost of drug R&D.



Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bern can't defend his argument. he can only repeat it. I wonder if he realizes how stupid he sounds when he argues that one variable (ie public or private) determines the cost of services.
> ...



Sarcasm doesn't work for people like you who argue both sides of an issue. 



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > The French system provides better care at a lower cost. You support paying more for less. You are so deluded, you think we can only afford health care by using the most expensive system in the world.
> ...



Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"

There's nothing funnier than a liar who can't keep track of his lies


----------



## sangha (Jan 25, 2011)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > ...our system provides the same level of care as third world nations like Cuba, and at twice the price!!
> ...



Umm, Cuba rates #31 internationally. The US is #32. Ergo, Cuba's care is about the same or slightly better than the US. I'll let you choose which you prefer (ie "the same" or "better") I'm not a nitpicker like you, so I'll keep referring to it as I choose.

And international comparisons of health care systems is not an impossible task, contrary to the limited understanding you demonstrate in your last paragraph


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?
> 
> A monopoly is when one company controls the supply of a good or service to such an extent that they can set the price. In SP systems, medical care (ie the "service") is provided by thousands of "providers" (ie doctors and other health care professionals) so there is no monopoly and SP system allow for private for profit insurers, so there's no monopoly on insurance either.
> 
> So no, you idiot. There is no monopoly



Your intellectual dishonesty know no boundaires does it? 

Yes moron it is. You're intellectual dishonesty is boundless. The peopel aren't purchasing services directly from doctors and hospitals so your contention that there are many providers is irrelevant. What people are purchasing is a coverage policy from an insurance company. Then the insurance company pays the providers. So idiot, just as it would be a monopoly if there was just one company that owned every hospital in the country, it would also be a monopoly if there is only one entity being paid by the consumers to cover their health care costs and it doesn't matter if that entity is a private business or government. A monopoly on coverage is a monopoly on coverage.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



IF you actually think it's credible to cite that bogus WHO report I suppose..........


----------



## BrianH (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems

U.S.= 37; Cuba = 39 according to the World Health Organization....


----------



## Christopher (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Which ranking are you even referring to, and what metrics does it use for ranking?  The ranking I've seen puts the US at 37 and Cuba at 39.

Please list what makes Cuba's system "better" than America's.  Then describe how we can implement these "better" things in America.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care
> 
> And he has to lie again about the premiums in UHC nations (ie "They let the citizens pay what they think is fair")



You keep saying I continue to claim. So please cite for me where I EVER claimed that other nations health care is more expensive than ours.




sangha said:


> I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"



And I'm debating someone who is clearly not interested in what someone is saying. You would rather attribute positions to people for the convenience of your argument. In UHC countries it is true that people are not paying what the resource actually costs. If they were there would be no deficits.



sangha said:


> Actually, the facts show that EVERY nation with UHC pays less for health care than the US, and many provide better care.



That's a little vague and misleading. When you say nation, do you meant the nations's government, it's citizens, who EXACTLY is paying less? 



sangha said:


> And there are no untried "models". Once again, you're relying on myths and not facts. That's why you can't actually cite any of these mythical "models"



So your contention then is that every free market option has been tried and failed? Can't wait to see proof that.





sangha said:


> Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers



I am very sorry you don't understand basic economics and business relationships.  This is just plain wrong and shows you just don't know your facts. FACT health insurance profits margins are in the single digits, so lets' pretend for a second those profits went down. Given they're in the single digits already you honestly believe that the builder of an x-ray maching is going to see that, charge a hospital less to buy one, so a doctor can bill the insurance company less to use it? You really are smoking some good stuff, aren't you. It's a lot of fun watching the ridicilous crap you're forced to tell yourself to make your argument fly.




sangha said:


> Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"
> 
> There's nothing funnier than a liar who can't keep track of his lies



I have never claimed it's an all or nothing solution. I have never claimed every aspect of health care must only be provided by the free market. NEWSLFASH dip shit, a lack of reading comprhension on your part does not translate to flip flopping on my part.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 25, 2011)

sangha said:


> Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers



From Factcheck, in referring to an ad trying to push the public option.  I think this applies here.  Pushing for a Public Plan | FactCheck.org


> In 2007, national health care expenditures totaled $2.2 trillion. Health insurance profits of nearly $13 billion make up 0.6 percent of that. CEO compensation is a mere 0.005 percent of total spending.



So, how much will be saved by taking out the health insurance profits?  My clarification for context is in brackets and bold font.


> What if that *[referring to health insurance profits]* was stripped away? Well, it wouldnt amount to a whole lot of savings for the health care system.



As a comparison, Factcheck went on:


> The Government Accountability Office reported that in 2008 half of improper payments made by the federal government came from Medicare and Medicaid. The Medicare fee-for-service program had an estimated $10.4 billion in improper payments, plus Medicare Advantage doled out $6.8 billion that it shouldnt have. Medicaids improper payments totaled $18.6 billion for the year. Those figures surpass the profits reaped by insurance companies and the pay their CEOs took home.



Do you honestly believe, after reading this from Factcheck, that taking away insurer's profits will help to fix our health care system?  The amount savings we would get would maybe pay for a few days over an entire year.


----------



## Dillon (Jan 26, 2011)

blastoff said:


> Problems?  What problems?  If there were problems all kinds of companies, unions, etc. would be pestering the White House for waivers to get out from under the ObamaCare scheme.
> 
> Oops...never mind...



hi everyone,,,
      Obama care center is specifically related to dental care.A good health care center in my point of view.
     I haven't listen to any problem uptil now.If the problem is as much severe.I agree with you that they all are pestering the White House.


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?
> ...



Wrong again, you idiot. In SP systems, people choose which ins corp to get insurance from, and then the govt pays the premium. There are many ways to do this, as demonstrated by the variety of SP system in actual use in the real world (as contrasted with your mythical solutions that have never been tried)


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Christopher said:
> ...



I know, I know...the cites you post are 100% accurate. The cites I post are "bogus"


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

BrianH said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Thank you

I was wrong. The US is not #32; It's #37

And it's not one spot behind Cuba; It's two spots ahead

The wingnuts must be proud. We're #37!!!!  (and we only have to pay 50% more than anyone else)


----------



## BrianH (Jan 26, 2011)

sangha said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



I didn't post that to be proud.  I just wanted to make sure we had the right numbers...and it's ridiculous that we're two spots ahead of Cuba.  On the same note, Cuba is a socialist nation with far fewer people to support.  I think their population is a little over 11 million. I think there's roughly 8 million people in New York City.


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > bern will continue to claim that the nations with UHC are more expensive than the US, even though that has been proven to be untrue. For some reason that bern refuses to explain, he continues to argue that we can't afford to pay less for better health care
> ...



You have claimed that Frances health care system is "unsustainable" due to the cost, while arguing that more expensive systems (such as ours) are less expensive.




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I am debating a wingnut. You are incoherent. One minute you're complaining that people are getting health care they can't pay for because they govt pays for it. Now you're complaining that people aren't getting free health care. That's what happens when you argue both for and against "govt solutions"
> ...



That's hilarious. After I repeatedly proved that a budget deficit is not debt, you're going back to your nonsense that the DoD had to borrow money to cover its costs. 

UHC nations pay for the care in full because, as you pointed out, doctors don't do it for free.





> That's a little vague and misleading. When you say nation, do you meant the nations's government, it's citizens, who EXACTLY is paying less?



The answer is "Everyone". 

If you don't understand this answer, tell me which word you don't understand, and I'll post a link to dictionary.com





> So your contention then is that every free market option has been tried and failed? Can't wait to see proof that.



No, my contention is that you're such a liar that I won't believe anything you say unless you can prove it.

So prove there are other free market options that haven't been tried by posting one example.





> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers
> ...



So what if their margins are low? You seem to think that executive pay and advertising are free.



> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh, love the way you promote "govt solutions" to provide care to the poor. Just a minute ago, you were all for that. But now, once again, you're against "govt solutions"
> ...



Actually, if you were honest, you'd admit that you have argued that private solutions are ALWAYS better than govt solutions. I'll even quote you saying it:



> Private business is simply more efficient at effectively deliverying service than government is.


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

Christopher said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, everyone. By reducing the profit of health insurers
> ...



Umm, the Medicare programs that are reporting the improper payments are the programs pushed by the right, who want to privatize Medicare.

In addition, by having the govt be the ultimate insurer, we also eliminate health care costs associated with

1) executive pay
2) advertising for health insurance
3) lobbying by health ins corps
4) duplicative and confusing procedures for doctors and hospitals who have to deal with the duplicative and confusing procedures the various ins corps have put in place for reimbursement
5) valid claims being rejected in order to increase profits

And Factcheck is not a credible source of info.


----------



## sangha (Jan 26, 2011)

BrianH said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > BrianH said:
> ...



And while size certainly is an important factor, I'd say their poverty is a more important one. It's a shame that the wealthiest nation in the history of the universe can't afford health care thats much better than Cuba, a third world nation.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 26, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



It isn't that their numbers are bogus. It's because the WHO, like you, seems to weigh cost to the consumer more than other variables and saying we have a poor health care system based mainly on the fact that it's expensive, is not an accurate reflection of quality as it ignores things like responsiveness and quality of resources.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 26, 2011)

sangha said:


> Umm, the Medicare programs that are reporting the improper payments are the programs pushed by the right, who want to privatize Medicare.



What does this have to do with our discussion?  It is obviously a deflection on your part.  The point still stands that improper Medicare and Medicaid payments exceeded health insurance profits.  You completely ignored the $18.6 billion in improper payments for Medicaid, which alone exceeds health insurance profits.



sangha said:


> In addition, by having the govt be the ultimate insurer, we also eliminate health care costs associated with
> 
> 1) executive pay
> 2) advertising for health insurance
> ...



Please provide credible evidence which shows the net savings we would have for each of these items, and then we can talk.



sangha said:


> And Factcheck is not a credible source of info.



Yep, attacking the source is your only option at this point.  Unfortunately for you, Factcheck wasn&#8217;t the source for the $13 billion in profits number in this case, so you can&#8217;t attack them as a source.  Perhaps if you would have read the source I provided (not that I expected it), you would have made that connection.

The liberal group pushing for the public option provided this number; Factcheck didn&#8217;t dispute it.  Here, for the real source of the $13 billion number:  Health Care for America NOW - What if . . .

If anything, the liberal group would be inflating the number.  We do know what the total amount spent on health care is each year, so we can easily take the profit number (even if it might be inflated) and calculate the percentage we would theoretically save if we removed health care insurer&#8217;s profits.  It is a very small drop in the bucket.


----------



## Christopher (Jan 26, 2011)

sangha said:


> BrianH said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Now that you have been shown to make stuff up with regards to ranking, I will ask you again to provide some evidence to your claim that we can make apples to apples comparisons between Cubas and Americas health care systems.

Please provide a list of items that makes Cuba's system "better" than America's.  Then describe how we can implement these "better" things in America.


----------



## sangha (Feb 4, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > How funny is it that you have to ask what a monopoly is, only to give an answer and get it wrong?
> ...



bern has repeatedly claimed that he isn't a wingnut, yet he continues to spout wingnuttery at every opportunity. Like a wingnut, bern believes that a SP system means that the govt will be the only insurer. And like a wingnut, bern will continue to believe this even after he has been given examples that prove him wrong.

France has a SP system where private insurers provide coverage. There is no monopoly, except in the minds of wingnuts


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...


b 
It's semantics Sangha when only one entity is actually paying the bills. Though we know whether bills get paid or not isn't all that important to you.


----------



## Tank (Feb 4, 2011)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRgB2eeHZEw&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## sangha (Feb 5, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I predicted that bern would not change his mind, even if I proved him wrong, and sure enough, bern still believes that SP must be a monopoly even though France has a SP plan and no monopoly.


----------



## idb (Feb 5, 2011)

Under the new healthcare regime will you still be able to have private insurance?


----------



## sangha (Feb 5, 2011)

idb said:


> Under the new healthcare regime will you still be able to have private insurance?



yes


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 7, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > sangha said:
> ...



Since you won't change your mind, how does that make you any better than me? If people can supposedly 'purchase' any private insurance plan they want and government will pay for it, why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan out there? THAT is why it's semantics.


----------



## sangha (Feb 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example

I said that deficits do not have to be financed with debt, and then proved it by showing that they can be financed with savings.

You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.

I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly

You say that SP requires a monopoly, but provide no proof of your claim.



> If people can supposedly 'purchase' any private insurance plan they want and government will pay for it, why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan out there? THAT is why it's semantics.



In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.

Do you have any other lies you'd like to share with us about SP systems? Maybe you want to ask about SP systems that sneak into peoples' houses, steals their babies and drains their blood to make bread? You could ask something along the lines of:

"If SP plans are going to sneak into peoples houses, steal their babies and drain their blood to make bread, why would anyone have babies?" 

After all, it's just "semantics", right?

("semantics" is what wingnuts whine about when they really don't have a clue how to respond. They don't even know what the word means)


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 7, 2011)

sangha said:


> Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example
> 
> I said that deficits do not have to be financed with debt, and then proved it by showing that they can be financed with savings.



Well other than the showing us where this fabled U.S. government savings account is with all this money that they've decided to just store there rather than start paying our 14 trillion dollar debt. 



sangha said:


> You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.



Sorry, Sangha. I'm not going to acknwoledge I'm wrong every time you put words in mouth, like you've done here yet again. I never said deficits can only be funded by going into debt. I agreed with you that they can be paid through savings or the sale of assets. The problem is the U.S. government isn't doing that. If it were, it would not be 14 trillion dollars in debt.



sangha said:


> I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly
> 
> You say that SP requires a monopoly, but provide no proof of your claim.



Actually I did. You didnt' refute it. 




sangha said:


> In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.



Ya think? OF COURSE if the government is the single payer it's going to have to restrict people options. There is no point in choice when money is no object. YOU are the one who started out saying in an SP system an individual can purchase from any private insurance company of their choosing. Now you're saying the can't. Which is it?


----------



## sangha (Feb 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Simple. I'm right and I have proven it. You're wrong and you have failed to back up anything you've claimed with proof. For example
> ...



Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.

Like I said, wingnuts like bern run away from their own words when challenged 



Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You say that dedicits can only be financed with debt, but you not only failed to back that up, you also have yet to acknowledge your idiotic mistake.
> ...



Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower. 

You also said the US can't continue to run up debt with paying it off, even though history shows that exactly what we did when we became the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower. 



Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > I say that SP system do not require any monopoly, and then posted an explanation of how a SP can work without creating a monopoly AND provided an example of a nation with a SP but no monopoly
> ...



No you didn't. You made up lies and claimed it proved your point. Like I said, even when shown a real world example of a SP system without a monopoly, you will continue to insist that SP requires a monopoly.




Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > In that case, I guess it's good that no SP system allows people to purchase any private insurance they want and has the govt pay for it.
> ...



Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.

Too bad you have to lie and claim I said people can't purchase insurance from a private comp under SP when I said the opposite.

So tell me where I said that SP systems don't allow people to purchase any private insurance they want, and do it without editing out half the sentence.


----------



## boofhead (Feb 7, 2011)

We already have a single payer system.  It is called Medicare.
There would not be arguments about the type of health care, or the methods of paying for it, if the cost was reasonable.  We only have this argument because our costs are too high.
The CATO Institute stated that about a third of the cost was caused by unneccessary regulations.  Such as those that force people who have good private insurance to give it up and go onto Medicare when they turn 65.  What is the point of that?  Who does it help?  And good luck to even find a doctor who will take you as a patient if you are on Medicare, some states have a critical problem there.  Ask any health care professional what he/she spends her money on and you will find compliance with regulations (not regulations supporting good medicine, just those affecting how they do business) is a major part.  And like corporate taxes, we the long-suffering users pay all these costs.  Most of the country has one or two companies able to offer health insurance in any State, stifling competition and driving costs up.
Probably another third of the costs associated with health care is driven by the insane malpractice insurance and legal threats.  Once again the total cost of this is paid by us, not by the companies or doctors.  Obviously if they don't make enough money to cover costs they go out of business.  Who wins?  The lawyers and the insurance companies.  Did you know there are now investment programs you can get involved with that support legal actions against doctors and hospitals, with the aim of making enough money to pay back the investors handsomely?  If that does not disgust you, you are not human.
There are many other reasons why we pay more for less in the US, but these two are obvious.  Yet hardly ever talked about.  Why?  The lobbyists make sure this never comes up for discussion amongst the only people who can do anything about it.  Look at what is being given to our fearless leaders in Congress by the health insurance industry, in order to maintain the present system?  And we, the great uneducated, are doing their work for them, as if anyone is satisfied with what we have now, or like what is being proposed to replace it.  
We deserve what we get because we are too stupid to even know what is going on.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 7, 2011)

sangha said:


> Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.
> 
> Like I said, wingnuts like bern run away from their own words when challenged



And weasels like you have to put words in people's mouth just to win an argument. You'd be right a lof the time Sang, IF the person you were arguing against actually had the position you attributed to them. I understand it's far easier for you to do this then actually defend an idea. 

For the record I never, EVER claimed the only way to pay a deficit was to go into debt. There are obviously other ways to pay for a defecit then by borrowing. What IS true however is that our government is indeed borrowing to pay it's deficits. That is an immutable fact. YOU have claimed that the government has the option to pay for this 14 trillion dollar debt right now if it wanted to by dipping into the mythic U.S. government savings account and selling of it's assets. YOU have shown ZERO evidence that either of these things are being used to pay the debt or if they even exist.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time




sangha said:


> Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.
> 
> You also said the US can't continue to run up debt with paying it off, even though history shows that exactly what we did when we became the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.



The faulty premises abound here. You're right we are the wealthiest. The collective wealth of the people of this nation is greater than any other. But our people are not our government, which is in debt to the tune of 14 trillion dollars. For you to be right here I'm going to need you to show how government deficit spending is linked to an individuals ability to attain wealth. 






sangha said:


> Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.
> 
> Too bad you have to lie and claim I said people can't purchase insurance from a private comp under SP when I said the opposite.
> 
> So tell me where I said that SP systems don't allow people to purchase any private insurance they want, and do it without editing out half the sentence.




Well because it kind of does, smart guy. If people have other options than what government will pay for it isn't single payer in the first place. That sounds more like a public option.


----------



## sangha (Feb 7, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Bern can't be honest. He said that deficits are ALWAYS financed with debt. Now he wants to pretend that he said govt deficits are always financed with debt.
> ...



You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.

So yes, the US Govt does have sufficient assets to pay off it's entire national debt immediately (there's $12T in SS alone) but since I never claimed it has done so, I have ZERO OBLIGATION to provide any evidence that it has done so. 




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure you did. You claimed that financing deficits with savings was "unsustainable" even though the policy has made the US the worlds greatest and wealthiest superpower.
> ...



Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have

1) $1,000 dollars of debt at 4% interest
2) $1,000 dolllars of cash
3) I have an opportunity to loan the money to someone who will pay 10% interest and put up his house as collateral

Should I pay off my debt, or should I loan my $1000 to the homeowner?

The govt does the same thing. The borrow money, and they spend it on things that will result in the US being more productive. This is what we have done throughout our history as a nation, which from it's very beginning, was saddled with debt.




> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong again. The govt doesn't restrict any options. They only limit what options the govt will pay for. People can still choose whatever options they want; they just have to pay for them with their own out of pocket money.
> ...



No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.

So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.


----------



## sangha (Feb 7, 2011)

boofhead said:


> We already have a single payer system.  It is called Medicare.
> There would not be arguments about the type of health care, or the methods of paying for it, if the cost was reasonable.  We only have this argument because our costs are too high.
> The CATO Institute stated that about a third of the cost was caused by unneccessary regulations.  Such as those that force people who have good private insurance to give it up and go onto Medicare when they turn 65.  What is the point of that?  Who does it help?  And good luck to even find a doctor who will take you as a patient if you are on Medicare, some states have a critical problem there.  Ask any health care professional what he/she spends her money on and you will find compliance with regulations (not regulations supporting good medicine, just those affecting how they do business) is a major part.  And like corporate taxes, we the long-suffering users pay all these costs.  Most of the country has one or two companies able to offer health insurance in any State, stifling competition and driving costs up.
> Probably another third of the costs associated with health care is driven by the insane malpractice insurance and legal threats.  Once again the total cost of this is paid by us, not by the companies or doctors.  Obviously if they don't make enough money to cover costs they go out of business.  Who wins?  The lawyers and the insurance companies.  Did you know there are now investment programs you can get involved with that support legal actions against doctors and hospitals, with the aim of making enough money to pay back the investors handsomely?  If that does not disgust you, you are not human.
> ...



Nearly all of your claims are untrue

Medicare is not a SP system. There are dozens of private insurers that are providing coverage for millions of medicare beneficiaries.

The burdensome regulations and paperwork that doctors complain about are the insurance companies rules and paperwork, not the govt. 

Medical malpractice costs account for less than 1% of all medical costs


----------



## BrianH (Feb 7, 2011)

Government healthcare is unconstitutional....

The federal government cannot control an individuals decision to have insurance.  It cannot control an individuals decision to work for someone who does not carry insurance.  
It conflicts with rulings, already in place, by the supreme court concerning the "right to privacy."


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2011)

sangha said:


> You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.
> 
> So yes, the US Govt does have sufficient assets to pay off it's entire national debt immediately (there's $12T in SS alone) but since I never claimed it has done so, I have ZERO OBLIGATION to provide any evidence that it has done so.



Then prove it. Show me where government has this 14 trillion dollars lieing around that it could use to pay off the debt if it wanted. Hell, let's just pay half of it at least....right? You're full of shit on this one sangha and you know it. You literallty are just making shit up.






sangha said:


> Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have
> 
> 1) $1,000 dollars of debt at 4% interest
> 2) $1,000 dolllars of cash
> ...



I asked how governments spending CAUSED the collective individuals of this country to be the wealthiest in the world. 




sangha said:


> No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.
> 
> So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.



So admittedly France is not actually a good example of a true SP system. Glad we finally got that cleared up.


----------



## Gurdari (Feb 9, 2011)

That video was ...interesting, if a bit weak. I can see the music and graphics and folksy manner convincing a 12 year old, but his 'argument' such as it is is not really supported. Plus, Canadians spend less per person and everyone is covered, regardless of income. I choose my own doctor, who actually *knows me* and get to see a specialist when I ask - if I need to go to the hospital I go to the closest one, just like if I called 911, the closest police/fire dept would respond. So, I guess I don't have a choice about which police respond, but healthcare is fine. If y'all switched you wouldn't switch back... people up here flip out anytime someone even suggests changing it to a private system.


----------



## Chris (Feb 9, 2011)

When Canadians were asked to name the greatest Canadian in history, they chose the man who created their healthcare system.

Click on the link...

The Greatest Canadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> When Canadians were asked to name the greatest Canadian in history, they chose the man who created their healthcare system.
> 
> Click on the link...
> 
> ...



Which only really proves that collective opinion and collective wisdom are two very different things.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 10, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Nighthawk62 said:
> ...


Exactly, it is nothing more than gov't. control.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Feb 10, 2011)

Common Sense said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get why you people are so narrow minded. The only solution that seems to enter into your heads for any problem is government, government, government. It isn't like us conservatives and liberatarians don't want health care to be more affordabe and available to those that need it. The solution is the issue.
> ...


When clinton left office they were calling it the clinton recession, remember. We did not have financial prosperity. We had more people living on credit. And lets not forget it was clinton that signed into law the dimwit bill that allowed the housing market to eventually collapse.


----------



## sangha (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > You seem to be unable to tell the difference between being able to do something and actually doing it. The US govt, like many successful business, has chosen to not pay off all of it's debt at one time and use the money to fund investments in future productivity. Nearly every single Fortune 500 company carries some debt and invest the money because they believe they can get a return that is higher than the interest rate the debt carries. It's called "growing out of debt", and it's how we have handled the national debt for centuries.
> ...



LOL!!!

I guess you realized how DUMB you were to DEMAND that I prove the US has paid down the debt 

And I proved that the US has the money the last time you asked for it






> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > Sure. All you have to do is be able to get a return that is higher than the interest rate you're paying on your debt. Let's say I have
> ...



By building the wealthiest economy in the history of the world.




sangha said:


> > No, it doesn't in any way. The govt provides a certain level of funding (which varies depending on factors such as income, family size, etc) for each individual/family. If the individual buys a plan (either from the govt or a private insurer) that cost more, the additional cost is borne by the individual. Individuals can buy any plan they want from either a public insurer or a private insurer. They are not in any way limited by the govt. The only limit the govt places is how much money they will provide to subsidize an individuals insurance.
> >
> > So basically, France has a SP system that provides Universal coverage through a combination of private options and public options.
> 
> ...



No, France is a good example of a SP system. It's just not a good system for the wingnuts like you to make up lies about. That's why, after all of your posts, you still don't have any argument based on facts.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

sangha said:


> LOL!!!
> 
> I guess you realized how DUMB you were to DEMAND that I prove the US has paid down the debt
> 
> And I proved that the US has the money the last time you asked for it.



No you didn't. Actual evidence would be something on the order of showing me how much of the tax revenue goes into this savings account you say the government has. Or showing what percent of the buddget is funded through the sale of assetts. You understand that simply saying something is so, doesn't make it so, right? The government has not paid down it's debt. It isn't touching the actual debt. Right now we're only paying the interest on that debt. And we're not even paying down THAT. For once look at this link, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time. Not only is the debt climbing, the _interest_ on the debt is climbing. We're trying to bail a tub being filled with water using a thimble one scoop at a time. That link PROVES you wrong. The U.S. government does NOT have the money to pay off the debt if it wanted to. Under money creation you will see FEDERAL RESERVE MONETARY BASE and TREASURY SECURITIES. ONLY PART of that 2.2 trillion reserve monetary base is what the government has in savings. Treasury securities, what the government is using to pay down the debt is 1.4 trillion. How's your math now?



sangha said:


> By building the wealthiest economy in the history of the world.



The government didn't build the economy. The citizenry did.


----------



## sangha (Feb 11, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> sangha said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!!!
> ...



Once again, bern is forced to resort to fictions in order to have anything to say. Now he's pretending there's a govt savings acct and according to him, he'll only accept an answer that proves that his mythical govt savings acct exists

I've already posted about the govts' assets. Try again

And before the govt started spending, the citizenry were building a third world economy. This nation became a superpower at the same time it had a 90+% marginal tax rate. Our economy didn't grow until our govt spent lots of money on building factories, an electrical grid, a national highway system, and a system that delivers clean water.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 11, 2011)

sangha said:


> Once again, bern is forced to resort to fictions in order to have anything to say. Now he's pretending there's a govt savings acct and according to him, he'll only accept an answer that proves that his mythical govt savings acct exists.



YOU are the one that claimed the U.S. currently has the money between savings and asset sales to take care of the debt if it wanted. I am the one who believe this mythical savings account is just that. YOU are the one who claims ever increasing debt is sustainable and you are very alone in that opinion. Even your boy Obama knows that we can't continue to grow the debt.



sangha said:


> I've already posted about the govts' assets. Try again



Again all you've really done is claim it exists. You've provided no evidence to support this. We can pretend for a second these means of paying the debt exist if you want. It doesn't change the fact that even if they do, they're obviously hardly being used given the interest on the debt is climbing. 





sangha said:


> And before the govt started spending, the citizenry were building a third world economy. This nation became a superpower at the same time it had a 90+% marginal tax rate. Our economy didn't grow until our govt spent lots of money on building factories, an electrical grid, a national highway system, and a system that delivers clean water.



The government did not build GE, GMC, Ford or Microsoft. Their PRIVATE owners built those facilities.


----------



## Annie (Feb 15, 2011)

And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:

NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph



> NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly
> The National Health Service is today condemned over its inhumane treatment of elderly patients in an official report that finds hospitals are failing to meet even the most basic standards of care for the over-65s.
> 
> By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent 10:43PM GMT 14 Feb 2011
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2011)

Annie said:


> And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:
> 
> NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph
> 
> ...



This is what happens when you remove the pofit motive. Ultimately, a business is accountable directly to those it serves. Those it serves, the customers, are those that have the greatest ability to influence business practices. That accountability is removed when an intermediary financier between the customer and business enters the equation. You don't have to do well by your customers then because there is no risk in losing money from them because they aren't the ones paying for the service in the first place.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:
> ...



You are correct but what you state is not the American model for the last 70 years. We have a 3rd party being the customer.
Under our disease care model it is insurance companies that are the customer. Never us. They pay, collect premiums from 96% of the population to treat 4% of the population that consume 60% of all health care dollars for disease care.
That is what the doctors demand, the insurance companies collect premiums on and we pay for. And it is a complete disaster. I own 3 corporations for over 30 years.
Your scenario is the free market. American health care is not that. Hasn't been since group health insurance ruined it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2011)

If you are sick and diseased America has the best disease care by far in the world.
If you want health care Canada and many other nations have a much better system than we have. We have a large population that gets shoddy health care at best. 
And we wonder why we trail the world in many areas.
Americans are one of the most unhealthiest nations on earth.


----------



## Bern80 (Mar 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Oh I agree. I just think adding yet another third party is going to exacerbate the problem.  To move toward fixing this problem I believe the financial relationship between the customer and provider needs to be more direct. 

But I also think as far as the political battle goes step one is making sure more government isn't injected into and compounds the problem. Then we move to your point of getting private insurance out of the equation. There is always going to be a need for it but it should be regaled primarily to catastrophic issues. That way individuals are paying for the more mundane thing. And since the more mundane medical issues will more directly effect the individual financially, that should cause them to make better choices about how that money is spent....which should create competition for service, which should lower the costs of more routine medical issues.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Mar 9, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



We are on the same page. Good post.


----------



## Polk (Mar 9, 2011)

Annie said:


> And the argument about all falling to poor treatment lives on:
> 
> NHS shamed over callous treatment of elderly - Telegraph
> 
> ...



Because such things never happen in America...


----------

