# The myths of high cost healthcare



## lynn63 (Jan 22, 2013)

All healthcare providers in order to stay in business must contact with all of the health insurance companies.   These contracts contain fee schedules of what they will pay for as allowable charges.  It is the insurance companies that have complete control of healthcare costs and not the providers of service.

In 2011 U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years and the reason why is because they control healthcare spending while providers of service must write off thousands of dollars because they were n't allowed by the contracted insurance.

 Healthcare insurance companies do not absorb the cost of people without insurance. The State programs take care of that.  Hospitals must accept the allowable fees from contracted insurance companies so the costs of the uninsured does not effect the health insurance companies.

The health insurance companies got hit when all the corporations of America paid lobbyist to change the laws so they could expand the oversea markets as this caused a lost of a large group of  healthy people that paid premiums that now no longer have a job.

This is where Obamacare comes in to replace that lost revenue that are now mandated to buy coverage.  The health insurance companies are raising premiums purely out of greed and to fund their expanding overseas market.  They all paid lobbyist and paid contributions to Senators to get laws passed so their profit margin got raised.

They now got waivers so they can keep their preexisting clause in tact and can cap benefits on individuals so nothing was lost to them.  Obamacare has been reduced to only effect the tax payers and not the health insurance industry.

Everyone can agree their premiums have gone up and are now facing more out of pocket costs but we are getting nothing in return.  When you CEO's of health insurance companys making 49 million a year such as United Healthcare and they paid lobbists in 2009 for 110,000 and paid contributions to Senators in 2010 for 458,000, they are absorbing administration costs in oversea markets, what is left to pay on claims is minimal.

All of these statistics on healthcare costs is totaled by the charges submitted to insurance companies when the real report should be on the allowables that the insurance company will actually approve. If we had that report we would see who is the most corrupt of all and that is the insurance companies.

They are draining society of all the money spent on premiums and have reduced fee schedules so providers of healthcare are feeling the pinch while leaving the masses to not only pay in portions of their premiums but also pay for their medical services due to high deductibles.

My employer paid $10,000 for my husband and myself for health benefits.  My healthcare bill in charges submitted for 2011 was $6822.25 but the insurance company only allowed $3499.54.  Out of that they paid only $374.74 for the year 2011.  I am responsible for the balance.  The insurance company profited just on us alone for 2011 $9793.46

So you tell me who is actually getting screwed here


----------



## Underhill (Jan 22, 2013)

Sounds like you have lousy insurance.  

I (and my company) pay roughly the same.    And my insurance picks up the tab for 90% of my cost for anything major and about 50% for anything minor.

Insurance companies are required to average 80% payout to premium rates under Obama-care (and have been required by many states to do this for years).    In other words 80% of all the money they collect must be spent on health care cost.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 24, 2013)

US insurance companies cannot expand into foreign markets because every other first world country has single payer government funded health care and there is no need for US style insurance outside of the US.  To suggest that US health insurance companies are increasing premiums to US customers to fund lower premiums for people outside the US, is ludicrous.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jan 24, 2013)

This is in CANADA??

You really do have terrible insurance. 

My insurance pays most of our bills with low or no co-pays.

As mentioned, your insurance company must pay $.80 of every dollar to patient care. If they don't, they must refund it.  You might want to look into that.


----------



## dblack (Jan 24, 2013)

luddly.neddite said:


> This is in CANADA??
> 
> You really do have terrible insurance.
> 
> ...



Luddly loves insurance companies. And they love him.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 24, 2013)

luddly.neddite said:


> This is in CANADA??
> 
> You really do have terrible insurance.



Can't be Canada.  We only pay about $2000 for our insurance and we have no co-pays at all other than $5 for a prescription.  Co-pays on doctors visits or hospital stays are illegal here.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jan 30, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> This is in CANADA??
> 
> You really do have terrible insurance.
> 
> ...



That 80% is for the entire pool of all customers.  Just because you only received a $200 benefit from you insurance in a given year doesn't mean that the insurance company profited the remainder of your premiums.  Good Lord, some of you just make me say WTF?  Insurance is exactly that, insurance.  You have it in case you are the one to get sick.  Then all the people who don't get sick pay your bill.  It's not direct, but that is the bottom line.  When my wife was battling leukemia, the cost was over $1 million.  The money to pay for that came from premiums paid by policy holders who didn't use much of their insurance that year.  This is how any insurance works.  It really is quite simple.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jan 30, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > This is in CANADA??
> ...



Nice, someone from Canada.  Tell us Dragonlady, how do you like your healthcare system.  Be completely honest, and give us the the good and bad.  It would be nice to get an honest assessment from someone who actually lives there.  My parents have a number of friends there who love the system, but that is them.  I'd like to hear your view.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 30, 2013)

I love the Canadian Health Care System, at least the Ontario version of it, Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP for short).  Each province has it's own independent system funded under the federal Canada Health Act.  I've never had any experience with out of province medical care so I can only speak about what I know.

OHIP doesn't cover prescriptions or dental, or vision care, and some other services (except for the elderly and the poor), so in Canada we have private supplemental insurance, usually through our employers, which covers those things that OHIP does not.  We pay $2,200 a year for a family plan through my husband's employer.  His employer pays nothing, but makes the cheaper group insurance available to his employees.  My employer paid for my insurance, but the additional family plan costs, we paid by way of payroll deduction.  Our share of OHIP Premiums for our family is $300 each for a total of $600.  Our total health insurance premiums for all-inclusive, low co-pay, cadillac insurance coverage is $2,800.00 per year.  We have to pay 15% of our dentist billls, and $5 for a prescription.  My husband's blood pressure medication costs $200 per month, which is about equal to our monthly premium.  The insurance pays for itself.

If I get sick, I call my family doctor for an appointment.  Go to his office for a consultation and preliminary testing, if necessary.  The doctor isn't required to obtain pre-approvals for any standard treatment or tests he deems necessary.  My doctor's office has a nurse to draw blood and obtain samples, which means quicker results.  For X-rays, mammograms, or other diagnostics involving specialized equipment, I usually go to a private testing lab, or these can be done at the hospital.  There are no co-pays for any of these, nor do I have to complete any paperwork at the doctor's office for my treatment.  My doctor bills OHIP directly, as do all private labs and hospitals.  Co-pays for doctors, labs, and hospital treatments are illegal in Canada.

Doctors and hospitals give very patient focussed care.  Every resident of Ontario has an OHIP card, even foreign students in Canada studying.  Many American students retain their OHIP cards long after they've finished school and sneak back across the border for treatment.  You provide you OHIP card or number upon admission, and your supplemental insurance information, if you have it and get wheeled off for treatment.  No one ever has to cut corners on testing because they can't afford the cost, and no one ever asks you about money, once you leave the admissions desk.

Waiting lists exist for certain treatments and services, but a triage system exists for all treatments.  Those in urgent need of care, bypass all waiting lists and are admitted immediately.  Americans are quick to say that no one should have to suffer while on a waiting list, and for the most part they don't.  If you want hip replacement surgery, or any other osteopathic surgery, you will have a long wait - up to 6 months, because there is a serious shortage of osteopathic surgeons in Canada.  That's the longest waiting list we have right now.

As for how triage functions:  The current target waiting time for a cancer patient to seen by an oncologist is 14 days.  The target waiting time between the first visit with the oncologist and the first chemo treatment is 28 days.  Ontario is currently meeting and exceeding those target times, but there is always that delay between when your doctor sees you, and when you first see the specialist, except if you really are very sick.

My friend went to the Emergency room on December 28th, thinking she had developed pneumonia after having a cold/flu over Christmas.  They checked her blood levels and admitted her immediately with a particularly nasty form of leukemia.  They told her had she gone home to bed instead of coming to emergency, she would have likely died in the night.  They stabilized her condition and put her through daily rounds of testing and preparation, and on January 2nd, five days after she walked into Emergency, she received her first round of chemo.  

Yesterday, she was discharged from hospital for the first time.  She spent and entire month there.  She survived the chemo, her blood levels are where they should be, and we now have to wait and see if she goes into remission.  Home care had already been arranged for her when she left the hospital.  She will be having follow up treatments and tests on an out-patient basis from now on.

What did all of this cost?  We have no idea.  Neither my friend nor her husband will never see a bill for this.  There are no financial caps on her treatment.  All they have to to worry about is getting her better.

Now, I hasten to add, to this story, the hospital my friend walked into was the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, a world-renowned research and teaching hospital, which has been conducting ground breaking research for generations, which happens to be 15 minutes from their house.  She went there on purpose, because it's one of the finest hospitals in the world and whatever was wrong with her, she would get the best treatment there.

I have grown up all of my life with OHIP.  I broke my ankle toboganning as a child.  I had my tonsils out, my appendix, and my gall bladder all before I was 25.  I've given birth to three children, and a few years ago, I fell off my bicycle and broke my foot.  I have never seen a bill from a doctor or hospital.  If I get sick, I get treated.  I don't worry about the cost, I worry about getting well.

My doctor doesn't worry whether he will get paid, so he is able to focus on the health of his patients.  Our whole system, is centred around making patients well, not around making sure that doctors get paid.


----------



## Political Junky (Feb 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > This is in CANADA??
> ...


It's cons that appear to love insurance companies ... they're against single payer.


----------



## dblack (Feb 6, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Though I'm sure they would have, given the opportunity, the 'cons' didn't sell us out to the insurance industry. The President, the Democrats in Congress, and the Court did. They joined forces to usher in the worst corporate abuse of government influence in the history of the nation.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 12, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> I love the Canadian Health Care System, at least the Ontario version of it, Ontario Health Insurance Program (OHIP for short).  Each province has it's own independent system funded under the federal Canada Health Act.  I've never had any experience with out of province medical care so I can only speak about what I know.
> 
> OHIP doesn't cover prescriptions or dental, or vision care, and some other services (except for the elderly and the poor), so in Canada we have private supplemental insurance, usually through our employers, which covers those things that OHIP does not.  We pay $2,200 a year for a family plan through my husband's employer.  His employer pays nothing, but makes the cheaper group insurance available to his employees.  My employer paid for my insurance, but the additional family plan costs, we paid by way of payroll deduction.  Our share of OHIP Premiums for our family is $300 each for a total of $600.  Our total health insurance premiums for all-inclusive, low co-pay, cadillac insurance coverage is $2,800.00 per year.  We have to pay 15% of our dentist billls, and $5 for a prescription.  My husband's blood pressure medication costs $200 per month, which is about equal to our monthly premium.  The insurance pays for itself.
> 
> ...



Sounds terrible.   A true nightmare.   I can see why we would never want anything remotely like that here...


*that's sarcasm for those dyed in the wool republicans out there...


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 13, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > This is in CANADA??
> ...



All of what you say is true. Nonetheless, ACA does require insurance companies to pay $.80 of every dollar in premiums paid to patient care. Insurance companies can no longer set arbitrary treatment costs and they must, by law, any difference. 

Under ACA, insurance and parma companies can't set the rules.


----------



## dblack (Feb 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Under ACA, insurance and parma companies can't set the rules.



That's a pretty hilarious assertion.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 14, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



NYS has had that rule for a long time.   The problem with it is this.   

When insurers know they have a captured market, the insentive is actually there to pay out more.

If a pill cost 1$ they can only make 20 cents on that pill.    But if they jack up the price to $10, they can make 2 dollars.   

As I've said many times, the problem with the system is not fixable without control.   The rest of the world does it much cheaper because they control the whole system.   

Right now, many doctors need a team of people for billing.   Get rid of the whole system and go to single payer, they now need one, maybe even none.   Big savings when you consider that this is the case for virtually all doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, clinics.... anyone who bills services for the health care industry.

And that is just one example among many.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Right now, many doctors need a team of people for billing.   Get rid of the whole system and go to single payer, they now need one, maybe even none.   Big savings when you consider that this is the case for virtually all doctors, hospitals, nursing homes, clinics.... anyone who bills services for the health care industry.
> 
> And that is just one example among many.



This is so true.  My doctor's receptionist does all his billing, and the billing for the doctor he shares office space with.  The administration costs for the Canadian health care system are under 10%.  In the US, it's over 30%.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 14, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> The insurance company profited just on us alone for 2011 $9793.46
> 
> So you tell me who is actually getting screwed here



1) the health insurance industry is not a very profitable industry

2) Democrats made it illegal for health insurance companies to compete with each other so of course they don't do a very good job.

Sorry didn't mean to crush you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 14, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Get rid of the whole system and go to single payer, they now need one, maybe even none.



should we go to single payer for all industries or just health care??


----------



## dblack (Feb 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Get rid of the whole system and go to single payer, they now need one, maybe even none.
> ...



I'd really like to hear an honest answer to this question. Mostly it just gets dodged. If government should be responsible for making sure everyone has health care, does this imply it should be responsible for all of life's necessities?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



gee, the liberals have fallen silent. I wonder why they are not anxious to answer? 

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism but assume the current health care system is capitalist simply because we in theory are not a socialist country. Its a huge mistake but that liberals lack the IQ to understand so progress in nearly impossible.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 15, 2013)

Eddie, your whole "a liberal will lack the IQ to . . ." makes YOU look dumber than a sack of hammers.

The US cannot currently go to a single payer system.  The system is too large and too complex and too much would have to change.  There are extreme shortages of doctors in some areas and that's with only 85% of your population covered.  With 100% of the population insured on an equal basis, where more money can't buy you quicker service, well, your current services would soon be overwhelmed and waiting lists would exist.

The current level of health care in the US is dependent upon one level of care for the wealthy, and an entirely different level of care for those who cannot afford it.  Levelling the playing field won't work and it will send the existing system, into chaos.

The ACA should have included a public option.  That would have allowed a single payer system to take root, build a base and start eroding the for-profits.  The public option would have been the wedge into reducing administration costs without reducing services.

What really needs to be looked at is streamlining and simplifying the billing and payment process, and drastically reducing/eliminating the pre-approval process.  This would cut out a lot of time and money wasted.  The problem with insurance companies is that they have entire departments devoted to reducing the amount of the claims paid.  The costs of eliminating fraud and waste are generally higher than the $$$ such efforts save.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > This is in CANADA??
> ...



Before ObamaCare:


The following Universal Healthcare countries have* higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:*
Out-of-pocket spending as a share of total expenditure on health, 1980-2000 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/22364122.pdf (table 4)
http://www.oecd.org/els/healthpoliciesanddata/22364122.pdf
*Canada*, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The US cannot currently go to a single payer system.



If i said it could I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will have a low IQ???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> start eroding the for-profits. .



does the perfect fool liberal want to erode the for profits in all industries or just health care. Can you admit to being a communist or that they are getting rich in China now that they have switched to for profit capitalism.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow? Can't you get your husband to help you respond intellligently??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The problem with insurance companies is that they have entire departments devoted to reducing the amount of the claims paid.



dear, as a liberal this subject is way too much for you. Where is your husband???

In fact, all companies have many many departments devoted to reducing costs!! It only hurts in health care because liberals made competition illegal among health insurance companies.

If they did that in say the auto industry a company could reduce costs by taking brakes off cars. But thanks to Republican capitalist competition they cant do that.

This is an amazing day for you. You're learning your ABC's. You're husband will be so proud.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, as a liberal this subject is way too much for you. Where is your husband???



Eddie, I would engage you in a battle of wits but I make it a policy never to do battle with an unarmed man.  You're just butt hurt because none of your arguments make any sort of sense.

Health care and education are not like building widgets.  The "cost savings" involves people lives and their futures.  These are not areas where we should be allowing the "for profit" ideal of reducing costs through denial of service and other crap.  It should be the best interests of the patients/students firsts, profits being secondary.

This is not a car, or a house, these are human beings.  Their lives should not be in the hands of the lowest bidder.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The "cost savings" involves people lives and their futures.



dear you are too slow by a factor of 1000? If a car company reduces costs by taking out the brakes would you buy the car when doing so would kill you??

Is that really too complicated for you??

Now you must see why we say ,slow????
Im sorry but I insist you clear your response through your husband.


----------



## dblack (Feb 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dear, as a liberal this subject is way too much for you. Where is your husband???
> ...



Really?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 16, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Before ObamaCare:
> 
> 
> The following Universal Healthcare countries have* higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:*
> ...



I guess you missed the part which read:



> b) Data refer to 1988 for Canada and Italy.



25 year old data on health care expenses is useless considering the changes in pricing structure over the years, both for health care and insurance.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 16, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Before ObamaCare:
> ...




Can you provide more current data that shows a decrease in the relative out of pocket expenses, or a reversal of said costs.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 16, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Can you provide more current data that shows a decrease in the relative out of pocket expenses, or a reversal of said costs.



There are no such studies.  And the information presented in your study provides that Table pretty much as an aside, and doesn't provide any information as to what those numbers relate to.  What exactly do those numbers mean?  Do you have any idea?  I don't.

There are no co-pays in Canada for doctors or hospitals.  Period.  They are illegal.  Co-pays for drugs - yes, dental - yes, but not doctors or hospitals.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 16, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Can you provide more current data that shows a decrease in the relative out of pocket expenses, or a reversal of said costs.
> ...



why does Canada matter? We have more cat scanners in Pittsburg than they have in the entire country. We subsidize them because they are so poor and people die waiting for the bureaucrats to respond to their ailments. Plus we have the added burden of inventing health care( we hold 80% of the worlds new health care patents), and we do it all with a system that is more socialized then theirs.


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> why does Canada matter? We have more cat scanners in Pittsburg than they have in the entire country. We subsidize them because they are so poor and people die waiting for the bureaucrats to respond to their ailments. Plus we have the added burden of inventing health care( we hold 80% of the worlds new health care patents), and we do it all with a system that is more socialized then theirs.



Bullshit.  There isn't a word of truth in that entire post.  

The US has the most medical research because you can make more money off your patents in the US than in any other country.  

People are not dying in Canada waiting for treatment.  More Americans cross the border to get cheap treatment in Canada, than the other way around.

Your ignorance of anything that isn't American is endless.


----------



## Deepbluediver (Feb 17, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> My employer paid $10,000 for my husband and myself for health benefits.  My healthcare bill in charges submitted for 2011 was $6822.25 but the insurance company only allowed $3499.54.  Out of that they paid only $374.74 for the year 2011.  I am responsible for the balance.  The insurance company profited just on us alone for 2011 $9793.46



So it sounds like what you are saying is...you should be allowed to shop around and pick whichever health insurance plan you want, or even not buy one at all if you think will save you money.


----------



## dblack (Feb 17, 2013)

Deepbluediver said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > My employer paid $10,000 for my husband and myself for health benefits.  My healthcare bill in charges submitted for 2011 was $6822.25 but the insurance company only allowed $3499.54.  Out of that they paid only $374.74 for the year 2011.  I am responsible for the balance.  The insurance company profited just on us alone for 2011 $9793.46
> ...



That's crazy talk. We can't have people making their own decisions. The insurance lobby knows what's best for us. We should just listen to them and do as we're told.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 17, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> People are not dying in Canada waiting for treatment. .



Please dear where is your husband when you need him??? 


                                Chaoulli v. Quebec
The majority opinion stated: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care". 

Middle-aged 'being denied cancer surgery' - Telegraph


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Chaoulli v. Quebec
> The majority opinion stated: "The evidence in this case shows that delays in the public health care system are widespread, and that, in some serious cases, patients die as a result of waiting lists for public health care".
> 
> Middle-aged 'being denied cancer surgery' - Telegraph



The case you cited first went to the Quebec Court of Appeal in 2002, which means that the was based on the situation with waiting lists which was prevelent around the turn of the century.  

During that time frame the Conservative government of Mike Harris cut $4.5 billion from the Ontario Government Budget, closing 20 hospitals, firing 6,000 nurses, and closing 10,000 hospital beds.  Yes people died on waiting lists at that time.

Lots of people died because of the cost cutting of the Harris Conservatives.  Harris wanted to bring in US style health care.  Since the Conservatives lost the 2003 election, the province has been rebuilding our health care system and our public schools, but those waiting lists for cancer care no longer exist.

Every province in Canada is within target treatment times for all forms of cancer.  Once again your data is out of date and useless.

The second article you posted is about the UK, not Canada.


----------



## rdean (Feb 17, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



All I can figure out is they don't know the true cost of healthcare because they don't have healthcare.  What else could it be?  I think many USMB Republicans don't have jobs or money or healthcare.  In fact, I suspect many are missing most of their "teeth".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 18, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The US has the most medical research because you can make more money off your patents in the US than in any other country.



who cares why don't all the other countries of the world do the same thing so we can all live to 150!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Too stupid, do you want us to be like the other countries so there is no money to be made and health care imporvements come to a stop!!

THe USA is a precious conservative jewel that is the source of civilization on earth!!


----------



## rdean (Feb 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The US has the most medical research because you can make more money off your patents in the US than in any other country.
> ...



And yet, they are so good at starting wars, redistributing wealth to the top 1%, wrecking economies, and apologizing to oil companies.

Let him die.

Feed the poor and they will breed.

We have no smart people.

Education is for snobs.

So "civilized".


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 18, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Actually, the countries you listed have lower health care costs, so yes they pay a slightly higher percentage of their total health care costs. but their overall costs for healthcare are much cheaper than the US.  Therefore their dollar for dollar would be lower than the US ala Out-of-Pocket. Their governments negotiate with providers to keep the cost down.  Other than Medicare, the US government doesn't negotiate with providers, thus the US's highest cost for health care in the world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 18, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> the US government doesn't negotiate with providers, thus the US's highest cost for health care in the world.



you lack the IQ to be here so why are you here?? So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers????????????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?? What other conclusion is possible?


MP: As the table above of Profit Margins by Industry shows (click to enlarge, data here for the most recent quarter), the industry "Health Care Plans" ranks #86 by profit margin (profits/revenue) at 3.3%. Measured by profit margin, there are 85 industries more profitable than Health Care Plans (includes Cigna, Aetna, WellPoint, HealthSpring, etc.).


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > the US government doesn't negotiate with providers, thus the US's highest cost for health care in the world.
> ...



Do you have a clue the damage the cost of health care has on our economy, National Debt or US businesses competitiveness on the world stage? Let me answer that question for you,,,NO!
Pick a country, any country.  They negotiate health care costs with the providers.  As the chart within my previous post clearly shows that all other countries pay drastically less for health care than we do in the US.
What the negotiated health care costs actually do is strengthen those countries capitalistic consumer driven economies because individuals/families have more expendable income.  Negotiated pricing, gives those countries businesses extra income to invest into their infrastructures, create new jobs and compete better than the US, the US companies are shouldered with the expense of paying thousands of dollars for their employees health care insurance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 18, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers???????????? Yes or No?????????????????????


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?? What other conclusion is possible?


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Too stupid, do you want us to be like the other countries so there is no money to be made and health care imporvements come to a stop!!
> 
> THe USA is a precious conservative jewel that is the source of civilization on earth!!




There is lots of money to be made in health care.  The Canadians solved the genenome, the Germanys have a lot of medical research.  

The USA is not a conservative jewel, it's a social democracy, and as long as the people don't vote for your trade policies which favour the wealthy and the corporations, it will stay that way.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Ten people are having dinner at the same table.  All ten people order the same exact thing, they all have the same wine and drink equal amounts.
The bill comes.  For nine of those who dined, the bill is $30.  But for EdB, the bill is $50.
Now this little analogy mirrors the cost of health care with EdB being the US.  Does Ed sit there and just pay the $50 or does EdB refuse to pay more for the same thing everyone else is getting?
What is logical?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 18, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



for the 4th time! Cant the low IQ liberal socialist answer the question????????????????????????????????????????

So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers???????????? Yes or No?????????????????????


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I thought my analogy would answer your question, but I forgot who I was dealing with.  The answer is clearly ,,,,Yep.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 19, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...




for 5th time:
So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers???????????? Yes or No?????????????????????


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 6, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers???????????? Yes or No?????????????????????



What logical sense does this question make Eddie, and quite frankly, only a complete idiot would ask it, but then I forget who I'm talking to here.

No other industry is as necessary to human life so you can't compare any other industry to health care.  No other industry eats up as much of the gross national product in the US economy except the defense industry, and all purchasing in defense is government controlled, and tendered to the lowest bidder, so I guess you could say that any industry which eats up nearly a third of the economy should have the government negotiating with suppliers.

That wouldn't cover all industries, but it would cover health care and defense.


----------



## dblack (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > So the way to get low costs in all industries and save the American people billions is to have the government negotiate with providers???????????? Yes or No?????????????????????
> ...



This is probably the most sensible question Ed's asked yet. Watch what happens with food over the next few decades. Because they're going after that next. First, they'll ramp up their efforts to regulate production and distribution, driving prices higher and solidifying corporate control of farming. Once they get the inflationary spiral started there, they'll use the subsequent shortages to make the same sort of claims about food being a fundamental human right and simply too important to trust to the free market.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 6, 2013)

dblack said:


> This is probably the most sensible question Ed's asked yet. Watch what happens with food over the next few decades. Because they're going after that next. First, they'll ramp up their efforts to regulate production and distribution, driving prices higher and solidifying corporate control of farming. Once they get the inflationary spiral started there, they'll use the subsequent shortages to make the same sort of claims about food being a fundamental human right and simply too important to trust to the free market.



You already have a situation where Monsanto is suing farmers for saving seed and driving up the cost of farming.  Food is processed to the point where most of the nutritional value is processed out of it.  Healthy food is fresh food, raw and unprocessed.  But the only people making money off fresh food is farmers.

But no, Eddie's question is beyond stupid, and your suggestion shows you're have about as much knowledge of how the economy functions as Eddie does, which quite, isn't much.  

Here is a question for you?  What percentage of American wealth is owned by the top 20% of wealthy individuals and corporations in the US?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> No other industry is as necessary to human life so you can't compare any other industry to health care.



as usual your first sentence is  jaw dropping pure stupidity and near perfect liberal ignorance. You don't think food, clothing and shelter are important?????? The human race didn't have health care until 100 years ago!!

So the question remains, dear, if the government must control health care because it is so important then it must at least control food clothing and shelter too- right?????????

Why not just admit you're a communist but lack the IQ to know it?? Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin???


----------



## dblack (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > This is probably the most sensible question Ed's asked yet. Watch what happens with food over the next few decades. Because they're going after that next. First, they'll ramp up their efforts to regulate production and distribution, driving prices higher and solidifying corporate control of farming. Once they get the inflationary spiral started there, they'll use the subsequent shortages to make the same sort of claims about food being a fundamental human right and simply too important to trust to the free market.
> ...



Far too much. You won't get any disagreement from me that big money runs our society. But what you're not recognizing is how the regulation and market manipulation you advocate feeds their purposes - they use it to their benefit. They use it to inhibit competition, to insure themselves against risk via bailouts, to control the market place to favor their interests and, now, even to force us to buy their products. How much blood to we have to give these leeches?

If liberals wanted to find some common ground with libertarians, and conservatives who aren't authoritarian corporatists - and perhaps build real, broad consensus for reform - they'd focus on looking at how the rules are slanted to favor wealthy interests and propose changes. 

Instead, they crow about the DOW maxing out and propose another buck or two be added to the minimum wage. Whodathunk the Democrats would be selling "trickle down"?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> You already have a situation where Monsanto is suing farmers for saving seed and driving up the cost of farming.



again near perfect jaw dropping liberal stupidity. Monsanto seeds produce far more prolifically and drop the price of food prolifically! It and other break through developments like it are the reason more people can afford more food today than at any other time in human history.

That you don't know that is beyond belief to an sane person.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Food is processed to the point where most of the nutritional value is processed out of it.



pure perfect 100% liberal ignorance!! If true life expectency would be the lowest ever not the highest.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 6, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Here is a question for you?  What percentage of American wealth is owned by the top 20% of wealthy individuals and corporations in the US?



is that a profound question??

1) More importantly, what percent of the inventions that save and enrich our lives were invented by the top 20%


2)  If they don't deserve all that wealth prove it by not buying their products, but don't be a common thief and steal the money you gave them at the price they asked! 

Do you want liberal government violence to replace all peaceful capitalist transactions in our society??


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

In general, most healthcare programs of European countries are far more efficient than the corresponding programs here, even as we have far more money. There's no reason why efficient healthcare couldn't be providing by the government, for all, or very nearly so, if political will was entirely focused in that direction.

Realistically, the government and military industries are already quite intertwined, so w/e. :shrug:


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Food is processed to the point where most of the nutritional value is processed out of it.
> ...



The cheapest food is processed enough that to consume the same materials in their original forms would make one far healthier over time. Bread is a good example.

EDIT: I.e. there's a reason that diabetes is so prevalent among the poor, for example.


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a question for you?  What percentage of American wealth is owned by the top 20% of wealthy individuals and corporations in the US?
> ...



The majority of people don't want it to be that way, where wealth is super concentrated in the upper strata. And offhand, there is that saying that necessity is the mother of invention, and I doubt the very rich do much inventing, regardless of what the people they pay come up with, even if it's at the behest of the man at the top.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> The majority of people don't want it to be that way, where wealth is super concentrated in the upper strata.



Too stupid but 1000% liberal. If true that they don't want Gates Buffet and Jobs to have their $200 billion why do they buy their products so they have their $200 billion!!


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> > The majority of people don't want it to be that way, where wealth is super concentrated in the upper strata.
> ...



What's stupid is a pattern which nearly all of your posts follow, but specifically asking why people buy Ipods or new computers, even in this context. And no, what I wrote doesn't contradict the last sentence.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > pjnlsn said:
> ...



Too stupid but 1000% liberal. If true that they don't want Gates Buffet and Jobs to have their $200 billion why do they buy their products so they have their $200 billion!!

All you're really advocating is a violent Nazi communist liberal government, but you lack the IQ to know it. Were it not for our Republican founders liberals would have moved us down this road long long ago.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 8, 2013)

EdB!!!!! What a dope!  You posted the same response in two different posts (#61 & 63)!  Here's a hint; turn the page in your book _The Idiots Guide Book of Talking Points Responses_.


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



In this context, only a child with no real understanding of people would honestly, with no reservation or doubt, think those two things contradict each other.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > pjnlsn said:
> ...



so exactly why is it not a contradiction to buy something from a man and then complain how much money he has?? You want to buy from the man and then steal the money back, but then, if violence is the libturd way, Gates could want to steal the software back too!

Isn't it fun to learn how to think??


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



What was written was about how people actually think, at least the majority. And that isn't how most people think. Or, as before:



pjnlsn said:


> In this context, only a child with no real understanding of people would honestly, with no reservation or doubt, think those two things contradict each other.


----------



## realinvestment (Mar 10, 2013)

So why can't individuals find some way to get around the insurance company?  Cut them out and just go direct with the providers?

Because the providers will hose them with over charges!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 10, 2013)

"_Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us_" is  a clear, somewhat concise and comprehensive explanation of health care in America.  Time Magazine's Special Report date March 4, 2013 is importatant reading for anyone who wants to converse intelligently on the issue of health care in America.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> "_Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us_" is  a clear, somewhat concise and comprehensive explanation of health care in America.  Time Magazine's Special Report date March 4, 2013 is importatant reading for anyone who wants to converse intelligently on the issue of health care in America.



if it said capitalism would reduce costs by 70% then is was intelligent, if it said reformulated socialism was the answer it was stupid.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > "_Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us_" is  a clear, somewhat concise and comprehensive explanation of health care in America.  Time Magazine's Special Report date March 4, 2013 is importatant reading for anyone who wants to converse intelligently on the issue of health care in America.
> ...



Instead of constantly copy/pasting the words of others from other sites, try reading some facts.


----------



## dblack (Mar 10, 2013)

realinvestment said:


> So why can't individuals find some way to get around the insurance company?  Cut them out and just go direct with the providers?
> 
> Because the providers will hose them with over charges!



Many have been. But the insurance industry has lobbied long and hard to discourage it. With PPACA they've made it illegal.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 11, 2013)

Do people actually believe that health insurance actually pays 100% of healthcare costs?  They don't, in fact their fee schedules is not much more then the government's fee schedule for Medicare. This is what makes it impossible for anyone to afford healthcare without having a insurance middleman's fee schedule contract that cut costs in half.

Prior to managed care in the early 80's, healthcare was affordable to people without insurance.  It is the insurance industry that drove up the cost so people could now not afford it without being insured.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> It is the insurance industry that drove up the cost so people could now not afford it without being insured.



as a liberal you will lack the IQ to know that:

1) the health insurance industry is not a very profitable industry and


2) liberal government made it illegal for health insurance companies to compete with each other. Do you think cars would be more or less expensive if liberals made competition illegal in the auto industry??


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2013)

With all due respect Dragon, you must rmove your feelings from any response about any of this.

I know that you'd like to be able to rule by fiat simply because your folks think you know best about everything...I am sorry you bought that lie.

Your post concerning the Public Option reveals much about what you don't know, and much more about how you let your own self agrandizement and emotions get in the way of reality.

The WILL be a single payor system in plave within in a decade if Obamacare stands, its just that simple...and THAT is what this ACA is designed to do...get the public ready for  complete take over of the industry.



UOTE=Dragonlady;6828000]Eddie, your whole "a liberal will lack the IQ to . . ." makes YOU look dumber than a sack of hammers.

The US cannot currently go to a single payer system.  The system is too large and too complex and too much would have to change.  There are extreme shortages of doctors in some areas and that's with only 85% of your population covered.  With 100% of the population insured on an equal basis, where more money can't buy you quicker service, well, your current services would soon be overwhelmed and waiting lists would exist.

The current level of health care in the US is dependent upon one level of care for the wealthy, and an entirely different level of care for those who cannot afford it.  Levelling the playing field won't work and it will send the existing system, into chaos.

The ACA should have included a public option.  That would have allowed a single payer system to take root, build a base and start eroding the for-profits.  The public option would have been the wedge into reducing administration costs without reducing services.

What really needs to be looked at is streamlining and simplifying the billing and payment process, and drastically reducing/eliminating the pre-approval process.  This would cut out a lot of time and money wasted.  The problem with insurance companies is that they have entire departments devoted to reducing the amount of the claims paid.  The costs of eliminating fraud and waste are generally higher than the $$$ such efforts save.[/QUOTE]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > pjnlsn said:
> ...



so exactly why is it not a contradiction to buy something from a man and then complain how much money he has?? You want to buy from the man and then steal the money back, but then, if violence is the libturd way, Gates could want to steal the software back too!

Isn't it fun to learn how to think??


----------



## proudveteran06 (Mar 11, 2013)

http://http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



do you agree that capitalsim would cut the cost of health care by 70%


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 12, 2013)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.  If for some reason, certain individuals need help achieving that, then yes, government should provide that with the idea that help is temporary.  Should healthcare be a guaranteed right for every American citizen?  Absolutely without any doubt whatsoever.  We are still the richest country in the world overall; we ought to be able to help all Americans achieve a minimal standard of living and an environment where the opportunity to better yourself is not met with one obstacle after another.  Instead, we have become a society where many people blame the poor for our problems, calling them leeches and saying all they do is suck the life out of our economy.  It's all pretty sad if you ask me.  

As for healthcare, I find it absolutely hilarious that so many Americans support paying more than double for a service or product than everyone throughout the rest of the world.  And what do we get in return for all that extra money we are spending on healthcare?  Do we get twice the life expectancy?  Is everyone cured of cancer here in the US, where they would die in other countries?  Currently, you can buy a new midsize car for around $20,000, give or take a few grand.  This price is pretty standard worldwide.  If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF?  We need to change something.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.



to each according to his needs or necessities is communist. Are you communist?? Is it in the Constition??? America acheived so must because we were free to sink or swim. Russia and China slowly starved 100 million to death precisely becuase they wern't!!!

How could you not know that????????????????????? How could you be so slow??????????




auditor0007 said:


> government should provide that with the idea that help is temporary.



too stupid!!! banks have to pay bailout money back, liberals give personal bailout welfare for generations and generations in part because they are slow and part to buy votes. 



auditor0007 said:


> We are still the richest country in the world overall; we ought to be able to help all Americans achieve a minimal standard of living



you mean some Americans should sign up to let others mooch of them their entire lives.  



auditor0007 said:


> If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF?  We need to change something.



of course we need to change to capitalism just like China did!!


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Government has a responsibility to see that everyone has access to all the basic necessities.
> ...



The problem with idiots like you is that you will take what I said and equate it to meaning everyone should be paid the same for whatever they do.  Everything equal for everyone, lmao!  You're a fucking idiot with your head stuck so far up Rush Limpbaugh's ass that your head is protruding through his mouth.

Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.




100% slow and liberal!!!!Where's the adequate safety net???? You call a near genocidal war on American blacks an adequate safety net???? 75% percent of black kids born without a father is an adequate safety net????? Slow???????

Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren&#8217;t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. &#8220;The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn&#8217;t do, what Jim Crow couldn&#8217;t do, what the harshest racism couldn&#8217;t do,&#8221; Mr. Williams says. &#8220;And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1]  From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America&#8217;s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.â&#8364;¨

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.â&#8364;¨ As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.â&#8364;¨ Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%&#8212;scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.â&#8364;¨ As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: &#8220;The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.&#8221; Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: &#8220;The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.&#8221;


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 12, 2013)

Roo said:


> The WILL be a single payor system in plave within in a decade if Obamacare stands, its just that simple...and THAT is what this ACA is designed to do...get the public ready for  complete take over of the industry.



That was in response to a question which went something along the lines of "If single payer is such a great idea, why doesn't the US just switch to it now?" which is why I said that the system couldn't currently be converted to a single payer system, and why.

I'm well aware that the ACA is structured in such a way to get the process started, but it's a long, long, way from here to there, and the Republicans will gut this thing at the earliest opportunity.  I was quite happy to hear Republicans in the last election say that if they didn't stop Obama this year, ACA would become a reality because by 2016, all of the infrastructure for the ACA will be in place and the US will be stuck with it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 12, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Well, at least you have the courage of your convictions. Most of those of asked, aren't really ready to endorse a full-fledged caretaker state. 



> ... we have become a society where many people blame the poor for our problems, calling them leeches and saying all they do is suck the life out of our economy.  It's all pretty sad if you ask me.



It's definitely sad. The makers-takers nonsense punishes the victim. It's wagging a finger at desperate people simply playing by the rules we keep voting for.

I don't really have that much of a problem with the safety net concept. I don't think they do that much good, overall, but they do at least alleviate suffering in the short term. It's when safety nets get too ambitious and begin to impact their relative markets that the trouble starts. The state's response is generally the opposite of what is needed - rather than rolling back the policies distorting the market they regulate more and expand the safety nets. This serves the interest only of those in control of the regulatory process.



> As for healthcare, I find it absolutely hilarious that so many Americans support paying more than double for a service or product than everyone throughout the rest of the world.  And what do we get in return for all that extra money we are spending on healthcare?  Do we get twice the life expectancy?  Is everyone cured of cancer here in the US, where they would die in other countries?  Currently, you can buy a new midsize car for around $20,000, give or take a few grand.  This price is pretty standard worldwide.  If all of a sudden, Americans had to pay $40,000 for that same vehicle while the rest of the world still paid $20,000, would you be okay with that, or would you say WTF?  We need to change something.



But what to change, eh? In my view PPACA doubles down on the worst aspects of the current system. We're allowing the insurance corporations to install themselves as permanent public (but still quite for-profit) utilities. We even sold out our right to say no them when we don't think their crappy insurance is worth the money. What were Democrats thinking? How could they do this?

EDIT: I'd also point out that Ed's original question, the one I'd hoped someone would answer, was "should we go to single payer for all industries or just health care??". Single payer is far more than a 'safety net'.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The ACA is a shot in the dark at trying to come close to the Swiss system, but it really is not close.  One of the biggest problems is that insurance is left in the hand of the employers, where it should be transferred directly to the consumer.  Secondly, the Swiss system does not allow insurers to make any profit on basic plans, only on supplemental plans.  There are also more cost controls in the Swiss system.  The biggest problem I see is leaving employers holding the responsibility to insure most people.  It actually limits people's choices and it is a burden on business that is unnecessary.  If employers were told they could no longer offer health insurance as a benefit, they would be easily be able to increase salaries and wages dramatically, allowing individuals to make their own decisions about what healthcare plan to purchase.  

BTW, I don't endorse a full fledged caretaker state.  If you work and are successful, you don't need any extra help.  The extra help is only for those who desperately need it.  Here is what really bothers me.  So many people complain that a lot of people live off the dole for their entire lives, and while this is true, they also say that these people are lazy and should get a job.  Well, there is a minor problem with that.  Those people have no skills and if we look at the current job market, there are an awful lot of people who have skills who can't find work.  How does anyone expect a person with no skills and no work history to get a job when skilled people can't find work?  Sometimes people are just not realistic about how things really are.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
> ...



If all you are going to do is copy and paste someone else's work, at least give them the credit.  It actually is a requirement that you do so in this forum.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
> ...



If all you are going to do is copy and paste someone else's work, at least give them the credit.  It actually is a requirement that you do so in this forum.


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Providing an adequate safety net for the poor is not communism you stupid fuck.
> ...



If all you are going to do is copy and paste someone else's work, at least give them the credit.  It actually is a requirement that you do so in this forum.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> *BTW, I don't endorse a full fledged caretaker state.*  If you work and are successful, you don't need any extra help.  The extra help is only for those who desperately need it.  Here is what really bothers me.  So many people complain that a lot of people live off the dole for their entire lives, and while this is true, they also say that these people are lazy and should get a job.  Well, there is a minor problem with that.  Those people have no skills and if we look at the current job market, there are an awful lot of people who have skills who can't find work.  How does anyone expect a person with no skills and no work history to get a job when skilled people can't find work?  Sometimes people are just not realistic about how things really are.



Re: the bolded portion - I gathered as much from your post, but the health care debacle shows where benign safety net efforts can lead. Especially when they're framed as 'guaranteed rights' as you seem to want to do with health care. I understand the compassion and sense of community that drives the desire to have safety nets in place. As a sane, moral society we can and should provide for those who fall through the cracks. But government is the wrong tool for the job.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 13, 2013)

Vermont has a plan for single-payer health care

Progress here....like in Canada....will be on a state by state basis. The states that lag behind will only serve to prolong the problem for their citizens.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 13, 2013)

dblack said:


> Re: the bolded portion - I gathered as much from your post, but the health care debacle shows where benign safety net efforts can lead. Especially when they're framed as 'guaranteed rights' as you seem to want to do with health care. I understand the compassion and sense of community that drives the desire to have safety nets in place. As a sane, moral society we can and should provide for those who fall through the cracks. But government is the wrong tool for the job.



The government is not the wrong tool for the job.  They're the only ones who CAN do something this large.  In every first world country, health care is funded by the state through taxes levied specifically for that purpose.  And all of those first world nations have health care on a par with that of the US, at half the cost.  If governments are the wrong tool for the job, why are all of these governments able to provide ALL of their citizens with a high standard of care.  These nations have longer life expectancies that the US, at a significantly cheaper cost per capita.

I was brought up to believe that not everyone can compete under a capitalist society.  There will always be those who fall behind, but the price of living in a capitalist society, was the obligation to provide a strong social safety net for those who are not as capable, so that our society can thrive together.  Even the Bible says we will be judged by our treatment of the least among us.  In a capitalistic society, it is the government which sets the framework for capitalism, so it is the government that funds the social programs for the poor.


----------



## dblack (Mar 13, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Re: the bolded portion - I gathered as much from your post, but the health care debacle shows where benign safety net efforts can lead. Especially when they're framed as 'guaranteed rights' as you seem to want to do with health care. I understand the compassion and sense of community that drives the desire to have safety nets in place. As a sane, moral society we can and should provide for those who fall through the cracks. But government is the wrong tool for the job.
> ...



It's not the size of the problem, but the nature of government. Government isn't a safety net, it's a billy club. The function of government is to pass laws and force us to follow them. You can't legislate a compassionate society. The  attempt to do so is pushing us toward totalitarian government



> In every first world country, health care is funded by the state through taxes levied specifically for that purpose.  And all of those first world nations have health care on a par with that of the US, at half the cost.  If governments are the wrong tool for the job, why are all of these governments able to provide ALL of their citizens with a high standard of care.  These nations have longer life expectancies that the US, at a significantly cheaper cost per capita.



Yes. All the other kids are doing it. All the other first world nations are swirling down the same corporatist drain, and I believe it's going to cause an intractable mess. We'd do well to steer around it.


----------



## Katzndogz (Mar 13, 2013)

Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?



Its a well established principle that a governemnt monopoly is the most efficient way to deliver health care, automobiles, and energy, not to mention many many other goods and services!!

The 100 million who slowly starved to death in the USSR and Russia don't mean a thing!! 

That France's per capita income is equal to Arkansas'  does not mean a thing either!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> If governments are the wrong tool for the job, why are all of these governments able to provide ALL of their citizens with a high standard of care.



1) they don't provide it, it is, in effect, provided by the US since we invented most of it with capitalism

2) they are less expensive because the people are poorer and

3) because they have a more efficient socialism than our convoluted speghetti socialism.

capitalism would cut the cost of health care 80% in which case it would be cheaper and better here than anywhere in the world.

Still over your head???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> I was brought up to believe that not everyone can compete under a capitalist society.  There will always be those who fall behind,



too stupid!!!! working at McDonalds in not competing!! THere are a millions of jobs than anyone can do without even speaking the language!! Thats why we have 20 million illegals here. Send them home, we have 20 million new jobs tomorrow, the recession is instantly over, and there is tremendous upward pressure on wages.

do you ever get anything right, any little thing ever????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> the obligation to provide a strong social safety net for those who are not as capable, so that our society can thrive together.  Even the Bible



too stupid and a morality bigot too!!  A safety net is one thing a near genocide against the American family is another!!! You're a brainwashed liberal parrot so you cant learn!!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."


We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often werent permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldnt do, what Jim Crow couldnt do, what the harshest racism couldnt do, Mr. Williams says. And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1]  From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of Americas Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.â¨

The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.â¨ As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.â¨ Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.â¨ As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family. Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?
> ...



It's not as though all organizations ever, which could be termed 'governments' always do everything inefficiently, compared to whatever standard. The important thing is what the people want, really. And if the people want healthcare provided for all, particularly those who don't currently have it, then ideally, that's what our representatives should endeavor to implement. And, indeed, if even just in the abstract, if a person wants something, he probably won't want it done 'inefficiently.'

And it's also hardly true that to provide universal healthcare automatically leads to gulags and mass murder, and to say such is largely a kind of propaganda, and beyond that, false.


----------



## dblack (Mar 14, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> It's not as though all organizations ever, which could be termed 'governments' always do everything inefficiently, compared to whatever standard. The important thing is what the people want, really. And if the people want healthcare provided for all, particularly those who don't currently have it, then ideally, that's what our representatives should endeavor to implement. And, indeed, if even just in the abstract, if a person wants something, he probably won't want it done 'inefficiently.'



What the people want, or rather what they can get using government, is supposed to be limited to constitutionally enumerated powers. Unlimited democracy is not good government.




> And it's also hardly true that to provide universal healthcare automatically leads to gulags and mass murder, and to say such is largely a kind of propaganda, and beyond that, false.



Not immediately. But each of these power grabs builds the momentum of the corporatist state. It's going to get ugly.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> It's not as though all organizations ever, which could be termed 'governments' always do everything inefficiently, compared to whatever standard.



dear, a monopoly will have no competition and thus no standards of efficiency and so will always be inefficient. This is why the Soviets and Chinese had about 20% of our standard of living. What grade are you in??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> The important thing is what the people want, really.



too stupid!! If they wanted a Nazi ruler it would be important not to get them what they wanted. What matters is what the Constitution calls for and what common sense calls for.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> And it's also hardly true that to provide universal healthcare automatically leads to gulags and mass murder, and to say such is largely a kind of propaganda, and beyond that, false.



why false?? has a libturd ever said how big is big?? How will they win elections if they can't promise more and more?? Can you see them ever saying, enough welfare, now you're on your own, sink or swim!!
You need to thank God everyday that Jeffersonian Republicans are here to hold them back!!


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people still believe that if the government is the sole provider of health care, the people will actually get health care?
> ...



But then France's per capita income is $48,783.
List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and Arkansas's income per capita is $33,150
Per Capita Personal Income by State | Infoplease.com

Showing us your super IQ again?    Idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

kiwiman127 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



from CIA fact book:  USA percapita income is $52,000, France, $34,000, and Arkansas $33,000



COUNTRY	GDP (PURCHASING POWER PARITY)	DATE OF INFORMATION
1	European Union	
$ 15,700,000,000,000
2012 est.
2	United States	
$ 15,660,000,000,000
2012 est.
3	China	
$ 12,380,000,000,000
2012 est.
4	India	
$ 4,735,000,000,000
2012 est.
5	Japan	
$ 4,617,000,000,000
2012 est.
6	Germany	
$ 3,194,000,000,000
2012 est.
7	Russia	
$ 2,509,000,000,000
2012 est.
8	Brazil	
$ 2,362,000,000,000
2012 est.
9	United Kingdom	
$ 2,323,000,000,000
2012 est.
10	France	
$ 2,253,000,000,000
2012 est.
11


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html


----------



## Underhill (Mar 22, 2013)

PoliticalChic said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Did anyone else actually look at table 4?   

It shows Canada's out of pocket expenses at 14-15% and the US between 15 and 20%.   Denmark is 11-16%.   Finland 15-20%.  Spain payed marginally more (20-22%) than those in the US with Switzerland being the only country listed who actually pays significantly more than the US for out of pocket cost.     

And this is for those who are insured either publicly or privately.   It doesn't include those without insurance who pay 100% out of pocket.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> It shows Canada's out of pocket expenses at 14-15% and the US between 15 and 20%.



This is because their socialist system is less inefficient  than our socialist system. If we had capitalist health care costs would be reduced by about 80%. This is something a child can understand.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > It shows Canada's out of pocket expenses at 14-15% and the US between 15 and 20%.
> ...



What fairy tale world do you draw these numbers from?    Canada's cost are significantly lower than ours.   Not just out of pocket, but the overall cost.

Here is a story that backs up my position.   One that uses real numbers. 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...


This is because their socialist system is less inefficient than our socialist system. If we had capitalist health care costs would be reduced by about 80%. This is something a child can understand


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 24, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> > And it's also hardly true that to provide universal healthcare automatically leads to gulags and mass murder, and to say such is largely a kind of propaganda, and beyond that, false.
> ...



The following is as serious a response as the above deserves, even if you weren't a troll:

You associated universal healthcare with the socio-economic conditions in the USSR, for much of it's existence. This is false.

Still assuming the above post was written honestly, it should be noted that none of it *really* has anything do with what I wrote before.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Except you have failed to give any real numbers, any sources, any factual information whatsoever.

What I understand, as would most children, is you are pulling these numbers out of your ass.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Except you have failed to give any real numbers, any sources, any factual information whatsoever.



well think about it dear, we have Medicaid Medicare Schip Tricare VA and intense regulation in each state while Canada has only one large bureaucracy. It figures that Cananda would be a more efficient socialism. Why on earth would our health care be so expensive compared to Cananda when everything else is the same price.

Did you think it was the Girl Scouts who controlled our health care system??????????????


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Except you have failed to give any real numbers, any sources, any factual information whatsoever.
> ...



Yes, but you still fail to offer a solution.  

Are you suggesting everyone just pays as they go?   100% out of pocket?   No regulations, a capitalistic free for all.     Because I am sorry, but that is no solution.    That means the poor, the sick and the elderly will all be fucked.   

But cost will certainly go down.   No doubt about that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



dear, under capitalism Lasik surgery went down by 90%. When capitalism drives all health costs down 90% paying will be no problem at all.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, under capitalism Lasik surgery went down by 90%. When capitalism drives all health costs down 90% paying will be no problem at all.



It went down in Canada, all across Europe and the rest of the world Eddie.  That's because more and more of the machines went on the market, and more and more people received training on using them.

Lasik surgery costs on average, $2100 in the US.  In Canada, this surgery is not covered by our public health care insurance and the procedure costs $490 per eye, or $980.00 - less than half of what it costs in your capitalistic system.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> It [cost of Lasik] went down in Canada, all across Europe and the rest of the world Eddie.  That's because more and more of the machines went on the market, and more and more people received training on using them.



Well dear since that is the only time in America when health care costs went down 90% and that is the only time when costs wern't well regulated by our  liberal soviet Solyndra crony capitalist corporatist gestapo that must tell you something about freedom and capitalism just as the recent experience in China must tell you something about how  capitalism lowers costs to make people instantly rich while liberalism does the exact opposite.

Please don't let your bigotry get in the way.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Bah... that's a dodge. We're not talking about helping the indigent. There are already safety net programs for them. If you want to beef those up, that's another discussion. Maybe we should.

But 'reform' like PPACA forces all of us into into the corporate controlled "safety net" whether we need or want to be there. There's just no need to indulge those who want centralized control over everything under the sun.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 25, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> All healthcare providers in order to stay in business must contact with all of the health insurance companies.   These contracts contain fee schedules of what they will pay for as allowable charges.  It is the insurance companies that have complete control of healthcare costs and not the providers of service.
> 
> In 2011 U.S. healthcare spending growth stayed at slowest rate in 52 years and the reason why is because they control healthcare spending while providers of service must write off thousands of dollars because they were n't allowed by the contracted insurance.
> 
> ...



Pay no attention to the Chargemaster (at your own risk!).


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> But 'reform' like PPACA forces all of us into into the corporate controlled "safety net" whether we need or want to be there.



Seems absurd when lasik just went down 90% because it is very very complex free market surgery!!

I liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism so the whole world must suffer.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > But 'reform' like PPACA forces all of us into into the corporate controlled "safety net" whether we need or want to be there.
> ...



What are you even talking about?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Where do you get these numbers?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



So you are claiming everyone who needed insurance had it under the old system?   Sorry but that just isn't true.



> But 'reform' like PPACA forces all of us into into the corporate controlled "safety net" whether we need or want to be there. There's just no need to indulge those who want centralized control over everything under the sun.



Everyone needs it.    The myth is that some do not.

Here is the deal.   A young person who does not pay into the system still has to have some form of insurance at some point.    Under the old system they could either wait until they need it, at which point it is insanely expensive or unavailable, or buy it earlier, which virtually none of them did since they didn't see the need.

Every plan, ever proposed, by either side of the aisle recognizes this problem.  

I would agree Obamacare is not the answer in and of itself.   It's a band aid solution.    But your proposal to just leave things as they were is no solution at all.

There is a reason both Obama and McCain promised health care reform.   The system was broken.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Where did I say that??? Where do you come up with this stuff? Is it from previous discussions with someone else?



> > But 'reform' like PPACA forces all of us into into the corporate controlled "safety net" whether we need or want to be there. There's just no need to indulge those who want centralized control over everything under the sun.
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone needs it.    The myth is that some do not.



Bullshit. PPACA is exactly one way to pay for health care (and a really shitty way under examination). There are endless other options, options that the insurance industry, and the federal government, don't want us to consider. But the main point is that *we don't need to "vote" and commit to one mandated, centralized solution*. What's so wrong with letting people decide for themselves?



> But your proposal to just leave things as they were is no solution at all.



That's not my proposal. Are you getting me mixed up with someone else?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Bullshit. PPACA is exactly one way to pay for health care (and a really shitty way under examination). There are endless other options, options that the insurance industry, and the federal government, don't want us to consider. But the main point is that *we don't need to "vote" and commit to one mandated, centralized solution*. What's so wrong with letting people decide for themselves?



Because things can't continue as they are.  Health care is eating up way to much of the GNP and forcing people into bankruptcy.  This is why every President since Truman has tried to reform health care in the US, but it had now reached a crisis point.

Yes, you do need to commit to a solution.  Otherwise health care would bankrupt the nation.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. PPACA is exactly one way to pay for health care (and a really shitty way under examination). There are endless other options, options that the insurance industry, and the federal government, don't want us to consider. But the main point is that *we don't need to "vote" and commit to one mandated, centralized solution*. What's so wrong with letting people decide for themselves?
> ...



Well, I think we've arrived at the crux of our disagreement. I simply don't see the need for mandating conformity via government, though obviously it's an appealing approach for those in power. Freedom isn't the enemy.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Well, I think we've arrived at the crux of our disagreement. I simply don't see the need for mandating conformity via government, though obviously it's an appealing approach for those in power. Freedom isn't the enemy.



You keep saying there are lots of other solutions, yet you don't provide any details as to what those might be.  

You don't have "freedom" now.  You have insurance companies telling doctors how to treat their patients.  That's ass backwards.


----------



## editec (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



The health care industry is SO UNLIKE every other industry that I believe it does make sense to have one insurance pool rather than many.

I cannot think of any other industry where the consumer is not the person deciding what it is they'll be buying.

Can you?


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I think we've arrived at the crux of our disagreement. I simply don't see the need for mandating conformity via government, though obviously it's an appealing approach for those in power. Freedom isn't the enemy.
> ...



Exactly! The entire reason we're backed into this corner in the first place is because we've already given up so much of our freedom regarding health are. We let medical boards, boards dominated by practicing doctors with a vested interest in controlling their market, decide which doctors we're allowed to patronize. We let state regulatory agencies, agencies dominated by insurance industry lobbyists, decide what kind of insurance we can buy, and who we can buy it from. We push people into employer-provided, group health insurance with tax and labor policies.

These are the things I would change if tasked with cleaning up the health care market. The major players in the health care industry have worked hard for decades, colluding with government to create their own 'fiefdom' of sorts. To recover consumer freedom and a competitive market we need to bust up their "racket". Unfortunately, they're succeeding in pushing the opposite approach.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

editec said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



That's the problem, in bold. And you can bet, that if we let them push this model into other industries, we'll face the same problems. And I'm betting they'll try.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Perhaps, then give me your proposal.    You allude to other ways, but fail to offer anything more substantive.   

How can there be a reasonable discussion when the only response I get is always, "there's a better way"?

Lay it out there and lets here it.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

Set aside this paranoia of the government for one minute and someone please explain to me what is the problem (and skip the bullshit) with looking at what the rest of the world does and emulating them?

I look at every other system in the civilized world and most all of them offer nearly as good or better coverage and cost half as much (or less) and cover everyone.    What is inherently wrong with that?


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Perhaps, then give me your proposal.    You allude to other ways, but fail to offer anything more substantive.
> 
> How can there be a reasonable discussion when the only response I get is always, "there's a better way"?
> 
> Lay it out there and lets here it.



I've been very clear about what I would change: 


dblack said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying there are lots of other solutions, yet you don't provide any details as to what those might be.
> ...



In short, I propose removing the legal barriers currently inhibiting our freedom to seek out health care solutions that suit our individual circumstances.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Set aside this paranoia of the government for one minute and someone please explain to me what is the problem (and skip the bullshit) with looking at what the rest of the world does and emulating them?
> 
> I look at every other system in the civilized world and most all of them offer nearly as good or better coverage and cost half as much (or less) and cover everyone.    What is inherently wrong with that?



It's inherently wrong because it vests too much power with centralized authority. For the same reasons we don't want government in charge of our religious beliefs (or telling us how to raise our children, or who to marry, etc, etc.... ), we don't want them in charge of our health care. This isn't based on paranoia, but history. The rest of the world is wrong on this, and I suspect we'll some really ugly shit go down this century as a result.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, then give me your proposal.    You allude to other ways, but fail to offer anything more substantive.
> ...



So back to what we had in the 70's.   Got it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Not what I said. At all. Can you read?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Set aside this paranoia of the government for one minute and someone please explain to me what is the problem (and skip the bullshit) with looking at what the rest of the world does and emulating them?
> ...



Okay but on that list most are nonsense comparisons.

Health care is not the same at all.  Health care is something everyone will need.    This notion that healthcare choices are a fundamental freedom seems silly.   

Ask anyone if they would rather have it or not, and the answer is clear.   Everyone will need it and it isn't (for 99.9% of the world) something people are against.   The only real choice is how much money you want to spend.  

And even that is nonsense.   Because nobody knows when they will need it.   Nobody knows how much money they need set aside.   So leaving it up to personal choice is absurd.   Nobody would buy it until they need it, at which point nobody could afford it.  

The only way any form of insurance (government or otherwise) can be affordable is if those who need it pool with those who don't.    It's really that simple.   Either make everyone have it and it is affordable, or allow them to opt out and nobody who needs it can afford it.    This is the inherent problem with any system that's goal is to take care of people.  

People who don't need it will always avoid paying for it right up until the point they do need it.   Then they will complain that it is too expensive.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



What you said is fairly close to what we had in the 70's.    There were some regulations, but no where near as many.   But if that is still too much, pick an earlier date. 

The point is, whatever time you choose, it was never a panacea for those needing health care.    These regulations were put in place to deal with real problems people had.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Then we have fundamentally different views on individual rights. What could be more fundamental than your health? Are you sure you don't want to take that back? If not, what rights DO you consider fundamental? 



> Ask anyone if they would rather have it or not, and the answer is clear.   Everyone will need it and it isn't (for 99.9% of the world) something people are against.   The only real choice is how much money you want to spend.
> 
> And even that is nonsense.   Because nobody knows when they will need it.   Nobody knows how much money they need set aside.   So leaving it up to personal choice is absurd.   Nobody would buy it until they need it, at which point nobody could afford it.
> 
> ...



That last sentence is really where it all breaks down. Insurance isn't something you buy after you are sick (or after your house burns down, or after you wreck your car) and then cash in. Insisting that that be a legal requirement is changing "insurance" into something else altogether. It's essentially government outsourcing its socialism - to be run by private, for-profit companies. It's the worst of both worlds.

If what we want is socialized medicine, or even just socialized health insurance, we should do it through our elected representatives. I didn't vote for anyone sitting on the board of Aetna.

As far as I can tell, most advocates of PPACA actually want, eventually, socialized health care, or single-payer or something that makes government the primary funding source for our health care. They see the current clusterfuck as a "path" to that (still haven't figure out what they'd dreaming of there). But for now, we have to sell ourselves out to the insurance industry, essentially giving them the power to tax us. Brilliant. Only temporary. Got it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



What is the fixation with "going back"? I'm certainly not suggesting any such thing. Unless fixing bad regulations and correcting ill-conceived policies is "going back" in your book.

This is why I don't rail much about "small government" or calling for blanket "deregulation". Just removing existing legislation wily nilly is no more likely to improve things then blindly passing unneeded regulation. In either case, we want laws and regulations necessary for government to do its job. The important question, that all these debates hover around and we rarely dicuss in depth, is "what is the 'job' of government?" i.e. which problems should we be allowed to turn to government to solve, and which must we deal with on our own?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

dblack said:


> Then we have fundamentally different views on individual rights. What could be more fundamental than your health? Are you sure you don't want to take that back? If not, what rights DO you consider fundamental?



If you want to get into fundamental rights as they relate to importance, I would agree that their should be a fundamental right to health care.   But a right to not enroll?    Sorry but I don't buy that.  



> That last sentence is really where it all breaks down. Insurance isn't something you buy after you are sick (or after your house burns down, or after you wreck your car) and then cash in. Insisting that that be a legal requirement is changing "insurance" into something else altogether. It's essentially government outsourcing its socialism - to be run by private, for-profit companies. It's the worst of both worlds.
> 
> If what we want is socialized medicine, or even just socialized health insurance, we should do it through our elected representatives. I didn't vote for anyone sitting on the board of Aetna.
> 
> As far as I can tell, most advocates of PPACA actually want, eventually, socialized health care, or single-payer or something that makes government the primary funding source for our health care. They see the current clusterfuck as a "path" to that (still haven't figure out what they'd dreaming of there). But for now, we have to sell ourselves out to the insurance industry, essentially giving them the power to tax us. Brilliant. Only temporary. Got it.



I agree a lot of what you say.    I am extremely disappointed that PPACA is what it is.    I wanted single payer.   What we got is a republican plan from the 90's. 

On the other hand I think he recognized that if he had gone with full on single payer it would be another historical relic that never went anywhere, much like the Clinton's attempt in the 90's.  

I do see this as a stepping stone, because like you, I don't see this plan working as well as it should.   But I think for single payer to have a hope of happening, our private system will have to become nightmarish and I think our system is heading in that direction with this plan or without it. 

Too many people (perhaps yourself included?) seem hung up on the whole socialist issue.   They love to ignore the successes we have had with programs like Social Security or Medicare and focus on the current problems with both as an example of failure.  Of course this isn't realistic.   Both programs have worked very well for decades and simply need a minor adjustment to continue to be successful for another half century.     What seems absurd to me is the fact we didn't make this adjustment decades ago.    It's not like the baby boom is a recent observation.

We've been talking about this problem for as long as I can remember.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 26, 2013)

Nobody inside the health care industry wants single payer because they won't be able to charge whatever they want.  Doctors and hospitals will have to join the AMA or some other union like association to negotiate with the state on reimbursement rates.  They do that now with insurance companies, but here there would be only one negotiation with the government.  The medical establishment knows that if the government is negotiating, their rates will have to come down and they don't want that.

For-profit medicine has been free to charge whatever they want.  A lot of doctors and hospitals refuse to deal with Medicare or Medicaid patients because the rate of reimbursement is too low.  In countries with single payer, there is only one rate of reimbursement and that's what they fear.  An end to the highest doctor and hospital fees in the world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> For-profit medicine has been free to charge whatever they want.



of course thats very very stupid!! You learn in Econ 101 that capitalist competition drives profits and prices lower and lower until 10,000 businesses go bankrupt in America each month.

Now you know why Americans are the richest people in human history!! THey have the most for-profit economy in the world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> They love to ignore the successes we have had with programs like Social Security



too stupid by 1000% but perfectly liberal. If SS was invested in private accounts, rather than stolen by libturds, an average American would retire with $1.4 million estate not the dog food money they get from SS if they live long enough to collect a penny.

How could you not know that??????? It is almost impossible to believe, but then you are a liberal.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > They love to ignore the successes we have had with programs like Social Security
> ...



Yeah, I wasn't talking to you.   Fuck off.    

You obviously aren't here to discuss anything.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Nobody inside the health care industry wants single payer because they won't be able to charge whatever they want.  Doctors and hospitals will have to join the AMA or some other union like association to negotiate with the state on reimbursement rates.  They do that now with insurance companies, but here there would be only one negotiation with the government.  The medical establishment knows that if the government is negotiating, their rates will have to come down and they don't want that.
> 
> For-profit medicine has been free to charge whatever they want.  A lot of doctors and hospitals refuse to deal with Medicare or Medicaid patients because the rate of reimbursement is too low.  In countries with single payer, there is only one rate of reimbursement and that's what they fear.  An end to the highest doctor and hospital fees in the world.



You are mostly right.   Morons believe the medical field is a free market system not thinking about the fact that most towns don't have a wealth of hospitals to choose from, or a laundry list of doctors just waiting with baited breath for you to pick them.

There is a shortage of doctors and barely enough hospitals.   Anyone who knows anything about economics knows that means inflated prices.   

One mistake we have made is cutting doctors fees to the point we have.    The problem is not doctors fees, or at least not directly.    The problem is with the cost of running a practice.    My wife works in a doctors office with a total of 4 secretaries (3 full time and one part time).    That's 4 staff for one surgeon.    That's because of the dozens of insurers they have to deal with, not to mention everything involved with Medicare and Medicaid.  

The doc makes a good paycheck.   But nothing outrageous.   But his overhead is easily double his pay.

This is why I am convinced we need single payer.    My wife would probably be out of a job, but it would save our system a fortune just in processing cost alone.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> This is why I am convinced we need single payer.



dear, America is the richest because it has the most capitalism. Did you think the Girl Scouts were responsible??

Are you a commie pinko?? Do you want communism in all industries??


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Then we have fundamentally different views on individual rights. What could be more fundamental than your health? Are you sure you don't want to take that back? If not, what rights DO you consider fundamental?
> ...



I'm not saying a right "to" health care is fundamental. It's not even a coherent concept. Rights are freedoms. I'm talking about preserving the freedom to manage our health care as we see fit, and not be forced into someone else's idea of what's good for us.



> I do see this as a stepping stone, because like you, I don't see this plan working as well as it should.   But I think for single payer to have a hope of happening, our private system will have to become nightmarish and I think our system is heading in that direction with this plan or without it.



This ... 

I've seen this perspective expressed before, and frankly I find it disturbing. The idea that those we trust to lead our nation could be so underhanded as to deliberately avoid productive reform in favor of something that they know will make things worse - just to provoke a catastrophe that have us running into whatever pen they designate - is beyond the pale.

But I don't buy that narrative. I think this is a comforting bedtime story (in its twisted way) that progressives tell themselves to get past the obvious bait and switch of PPACA - but it has no resemblance to reality.



> Too many people (perhaps yourself included?) seem hung up on the whole socialist issue.



I'm not "hung up" on it. I do think socialism is a fundamental misconception regarding the proper purpose of government, and a dangerous consolidation of economic and political power, but like most things, it can be done well. I can conceive of a largely socialist nation that still managed to respect (most) individual rights, and still managed to maintain rule of law and equal protection. Socialism can also step all over these things.  

But what I'm trying to tell you is PPACA isn't socialism. It isn't a bridge to socialism. It's textbook corporatism. If you haven't already done so, do us both a favor and read up a little on corporatism before you respond. The wikipedia article is a pretty good place to start. The key thing to notice is that, unlike socialism, corporatism doesn't seek a classless society. Under corporatism, government aims to appease and balance the interests of all classes and corporate groups by acting as an arbiter of power - dispensing favor and assessing penalty ad-hoc to achieve its political aims.


----------



## lonelygirl8 (Mar 27, 2013)

From where is this?


----------



## editec (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



This problem is basically unique to certain PROFESSIONS.

Medicine and the LAW are two excellent examples.

In both cases the PROVIDER TELLS THE CONSUMER what they'll be buying.

But only medicine has an environment where most payments are third party, which makes how this society pays for HC rather unique to our mostly capitalist system.

Thinking that the same laws of economics that applies to most purchasing also apply to HC is simply missing the ASTOUNDINGLY obvious.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > This is why I am convinced we need single payer.
> ...



No I am not dear.   But we can keep capitalism where it is working and get rid of it where it isn't.    

Only a fool would think capitalism is the answer for everything.   There are plenty of examples of it failing.   Hell, unregulated capitalism is screwing America over right now in the form of jobs being sent to China.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yeah I knew what you were saying.   And I think it's a bullshit concept.   Most people have no clue what is good for us.  It's like claiming parents with a 6th grade education should be solely responsible for their childrens education.    Decisions on treatment, sure.   But what decision is there for coverage?   Everyone needs it or will need it.    So what decision is there?   Put off paying for it?    We can either start paying for health care from the day we enter the workforce, or pay more for it later.    Not much of a choice. 



> I've seen this perspective expressed before, and frankly I find it disturbing. The idea that those we trust to lead our nation could be so underhanded as to deliberately avoid productive reform in favor of something that they know will make things worse - just to provoke a catastrophe that have us running into whatever pen they designate - is beyond the pale.



I'm not saying we should deliberately avoid or provoke anything.   I'm saying the current new plan is better than what we had, since it covers more people, but doesn't fix the inherent flaw in the system.   

I believe the problems with our current system cannot be fixed without control.  



> I'm not "hung up" on it. I do think socialism is a fundamental misconception regarding the proper purpose of government, and a dangerous consolidation of economic and political power, but like most things, it can be done well. I can conceive of a largely socialist nation that still managed to respect (most) individual rights, and still managed to maintain rule of law and equal protection. Socialism can also step all over these things.
> 
> But what I'm trying to tell you is PPACA isn't socialism. It isn't a bridge to socialism. It's textbook corporatism. If you haven't already done so, do us both a favor and read up a little on corporatism before you respond. The wikipedia article is a pretty good place to start. The key thing to notice is that, unlike socialism, corporatism doesn't seek a classless society. Under corporatism, government aims to appease and balance the interests of all classes and corporate groups by acting as an arbiter of power - dispensing favor and assessing penalty ad-hoc to achieve its political aims.



I understand, and again, agree with you.   But if you think this is the beginning then you are delusional.   We have been a corporatist nation for the last 40 years, maybe longer.

Virtually all our policies, from tax policy, to defense, to monetary policy and trade, are all geared towards the benefit and welfare of the corporations.

And I agree it's a problem.    I've bitched about it for at least 10 years.   But until the American people recognize it, we are fucked.    And since the American people tune into primarily corporate controlled media, it may be a long time coming.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's called freedom. Legal adults have the right and responsibility to decide what is good for them without being bullied into something against their will.



> But what decision is there for coverage?   Everyone needs it or will need it.    So what decision is there?   Put off paying for it?    We can either start paying for health care from the day we enter the workforce, or pay more for it later.    Not much of a choice.



Endless decisions and choices (decisions that PPACA deliberately thwarts). How much insurance do we actually need? What should be covered? What should be excluded? How much is it worth? How much should we pay for ourselves? How much risk is acceptable?

It's our delusional attempt to avoid making these decisions, and to get government to do it for us, that's painted us into this corner in the first place.



> > I've seen this perspective expressed before, and frankly I find it disturbing. The idea that those we trust to lead our nation could be so underhanded as to deliberately avoid productive reform in favor of something that they know will make things worse - just to provoke a catastrophe that have us running into whatever pen they designate - is beyond the pale.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying we should deliberately avoid or provoke anything.   I'm saying the current new plan is better than what we had, since it covers more people, but doesn't fix the inherent flaw in the system.



Then say that instead. Agreeing that PPACA will be a failure, and then trying to tout that as secretly a 'good thing' because it will provoke a "nightmarish" scenario just seems shifty. I don't think the current new plan is better than what we had. When the health care reform process started, I supported it because I thought they couldn't possibly make it any worse. I was wrong.



> I believe the problems with our current system cannot be fixed without control.



Control of whom? By whom?



> I understand, and again, agree with you.   But if you think this is the beginning then you are delusional.   We have been a corporatist nation for the last 40 years, maybe longer.



Sure - probably longer. The corporatist trend isn't new. My point is just that PPACA doesn't break that trend. It's another brick in the wall.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes but if everyone needs it, why bother?   Set up a program like Medicare for all and simply allow people to purchase gap insurance if they want to.    You are essentially saying everyone should be able to make poor decisions about their healthcare if they want.   And I'm saying all that does it postpone the problem.

It's an awful lot like retirement.    Everyone needs to be setting money aside for it.   But if given the choice, a large segment of the population just wont.    But if we allow them that complete freedom then we, the public, end up with a population of poor starving elderly we have to deal  with.   

So we came out with Social Security.  

In my ideal world we would set up a system that covered 80-90% of essential care and preventative medicine cost.   And limited essential care for dental or vision.   

Then those who want to buy gap insurance could do so.   Co-pays would go to a single government office rather than the doctors.   Although it may be worthwhile to simply cover 100%.    I've heard discussions with British officials who came to the conclusion that a system of co-pays would require so much additional resources to process that we may be better off covering it all.    On the other hand, making people pay may reduce usage.  

Anyway, that is a separate discussion. 



> Then say that instead. Agreeing that PPACA will be a failure, and then trying to tout that as secretly a 'good thing' because it will provoke a "nightmarish" scenario just seems shifty. I don't think the current new plan is better than what we had. When the health care reform process started, I supported it because I thought they couldn't possibly make it any worse. I was wrong.



What we had was headed for this nightmare scenario too.    It's a matter of cost.   



> Control of whom? By whom?



Control of cost.   With a single payer system you can regulate cost.    Virtually everyone in the system will be getting paid from a single source, getting rid of vast mountains of paperwork.

As it is now, there is no control.   The whole system is chaos.



> Sure - probably longer. The corporatist trend isn't new. My point is just that PPACA doesn't break that trend. It's another brick in the wall.



We're in agreement there.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 27, 2013)

There is no reason for these high costs except greed.  In 2011 there were 138 million tax payers that paid payroll taxes for FICA.  There are 40 million seniors and 10 million people on disability.  There is something wrong when Medicare hospital insurance when 138 million people is not enough to support it.


----------



## editec (Mar 27, 2013)

What's wrong with HC can be described rather easily.

Its developed into a Third-party-payment system where the consumers, the third party payers and (obviously) the HC providers
have no built-in incentive to keep costs down.

ACA does NOT address this problem at all, as far as I understand it.

To date no proponent of ACA has corrected me on that point, so I assume that I am right.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Because everyone doesn't need 'it'. Some people are rich enough they don't need health insurance. Some people refuse modern health care altogether. And the more important point, because *everyone's needs are different.* And because what each of us can afford is different. 



> You are essentially saying everyone should be able to make poor decisions about their healthcare if they want.



That's exactly what I'm saying. Because everyone's idea of what a makes 'poor' decision will be different. There's no reason to force majority consensus on the minorities who might disagree.



> > Control of whom? By whom?
> 
> 
> 
> Control of cost.   With a single payer system you can regulate cost.    Virtually everyone in the system will be getting paid from a single source, getting rid of vast mountains of paperwork.



Laws and regulation don't control "costs". They control people. To which I repeat my question, who's controlling whom?



> > Sure - probably longer. The corporatist trend isn't new. My point is just that PPACA doesn't break that trend. It's another brick in the wall.
> 
> 
> 
> We're in agreement there.



So why on earth make that wall any higher?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Because everyone doesn't need 'it'. Some people are rich enough they don't need health insurance. Some people refuse modern health care altogether. And the more important point, because *everyone's needs are different.* And because what each of us can afford is different.
> 
> That's exactly what I'm saying. Because everyone's idea of what a makes 'poor' decision will be different. There's no reason to force majority consensus on the minorities who might disagree.



Nope sorry, everyone will need health care at some point.   The rich, who cares.   They can use whatever they like.   The rest of us will need health care at some point.    And those who put off paying for it at a young age simply end up costing the rest of us when they get older or fall on hard times.  

That is my whole point.   Statistically speaking virtually everyone gets sick.   Everyone will need it.    The sooner we can get everyone paying for it the lower the cost will be.   Allowing people to put it off just shifts the burden from them to the rest of us in too many cases.  



> Laws and regulation don't control "costs". They control people. To which I repeat my question, who's controlling whom?



Of course regulations can control cost.   Just look at Canada's drug prices if you don't believe me. 



> So why on earth make that wall any higher?



Because at this point it doesn't matter.    The old or the new, either way we will be facing the same problem.    At least this way more people are covered.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

editec said:


> To date no proponent of ACA has corrected me on that point, so I assume that I am right.




Well the ACA has many plans to control costs( liberals are only 99% stupid)  but they are all socialist. For example, they plan to provide incentives to hospitals that keep  readmission rates down by, for example,  following up with patients to see that they stay on their meds. Another one is to make all MD's hospital employees and then do time motion studies to determine how much time each  procedure should take, and then pay accordingly.

The incentive is not capitalist in that it is not based on daily capitalist self-policing wherein  you have posted prices, consumers shopping with their own money, and providers competing on the basis of price and quality.

The liberal ACA system depends 100% on the intelligence and vigilance of a soviet bureaucracy in Washington and we all know how well that will work out!


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Because everyone doesn't need 'it'. Some people are rich enough they don't need health insurance. Some people refuse modern health care altogether. And the more important point, because *everyone's needs are different.* And because what each of us can afford is different.
> ...



Please don't equivocate health _care_ and health _insurance_. They're not the same thing. So much of this debate is trying to get past this fixation on insurance as the _only_ way to take care of our health, and that's just nonsense. The insurance industry certainly wants to sell that view, but it's not true. Unless, of course, it's forced on us via government.



> > Laws and regulation don't control "costs". They control people. To which I repeat my question, who's controlling whom?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course regulations can control cost.   Just look at Canada's drug prices if you don't believe me.



C'mon. Don't evade the issue. WHO will control prices? ie who will control how much vendors (people) can charge and how much consumers (people) will pay? Any chance it will be the same people who control regulation currently (industry lobbyists)?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



capitalism keeps prices so low that Americans are richest people in human history. Do you wonder why prices are not low in health care??
Perhaps because there is no capitalism there.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

dblack said:


> Please don't equivocate health _care_ and health _insurance_. They're not the same thing. So much of this debate is trying to get past this fixation on insurance as the _only_ way to take care of our health, and that's just nonsense. The insurance industry certainly wants to sell that view, but it's not true. Unless, of course, it's forced on us via government.



Right, except when I ask for alternatives all you offer is "opening up the markets".

So again I ask, if you reject insurance, and reject government plans, how do you expect to get your health care?   Pay as you go?    Because that will work fine right up until something serious happens, then you are screwed.  



> C'mon. Don't evade the issue. WHO will control prices? ie who will control how much vendors (people) can charge and how much consumers (people) will pay? Any chance it will be the same people who control regulation currently (industry lobbyists)?



Who is evading anything?

The reality is that cost can be controlled by anyone we like.   Industry lobbyist will have say, no doubt.   But so will other interest groups like AARP, the CFA and the AMAC who will fight for consumer protections.  If you think  AARP doesn't have some pull, you are dreaming.    It's one of the reason nobody dares touch their current health care and social security.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Of course there is, that is why the prices are so high.   Scarcity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> WHO will control prices?



ideally capitalism will control prices as it does in all industries. Why do you think Americans can afford enough to be the richest in all of human history!!

All thats needed is for liberals to make capitalism legal in the health care industry!!


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > WHO will control prices?
> ...



For a smart guy you get an awful lot of facts wrong. 

We may have the highest GDP in the world, but we are 7th per capita.   And even those numbers are vastly skewed by the extreme wealth disparities.   If you use median income, we would be hard pressed to make the top 25.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



well, among major industrial countries, not tax haven's, that hardly have as their  slogan, "give us the world's tired weak and poor!!"

anyway, you're changing the subject to numbers debate because you lack the IQ for the subject


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Clearly.    Obviously between you and I, I am the idiot.    Yep.  

You wouldn't happen to be a guy called biblethumper by another name would you?   Because he was just as brilliant as you on another forum I frequented.   Same mannerisms, same, umm, wit.


----------



## Antares (Mar 27, 2013)

Price controls will be instituted with Single Payor.


----------



## dblack (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't equivocate health _care_ and health _insurance_. They're not the same thing. So much of this debate is trying to get past this fixation on insurance as the _only_ way to take care of our health, and that's just nonsense. The insurance industry certainly wants to sell that view, but it's not true. Unless, of course, it's forced on us via government.
> ...



If you're asking me personally, my gut reaction is - none of your business! And that actually speaks to the point I'm making, as well as being snarky.  Seriously though, the entire argument I'm making is that no one, whether they claim to represent the majority or not, should be allowed to dictate how we deal with something so personal. I'm arguing for keeping alternatives - all of them - *legal*. Instead, we're committing everyone to the same sinking ship. 

If your asking what kinds of reforms I'd make if it were up to me, I'd first undo all the incentives that have established employer-provided, group insurance as the norm. Those of us who have insurance, in general, are over-insured. 

Every dollar we spend out of pocket represents not only cost savings, in avoiding the overhead of the insurance middleman, but also a restoration of sanity to the health care market. _People who are paying for something themselves care how much they're spending_ - yes, even for health care. People who aren't, don't. That's the situation we're in now. As editec pointed out, no one cares what their health care costs because very few of us are paying for it.

We should all be paying for as much of our health care as we can afford out of pocket, and relying on insurance as it was originally intended - as a backstop against unforeseen catastrophe. As a means of financing routine health care expense, insurance is not only dumb from a personal finances perspective, but it's poisonous to the marketplace. With no customer motivation to save money, prices will go through the roof in any market.

Now, I'm aware that even with sane reforms to ill-conceived incentives and bad regulation, it will take time for the market to recover to a reasonable level. In the meantime, we could and should beef up the safety nets, within reason. Government, in part, got us into this mess and it seems right that they should help out the people getting screwed the worst until the damage can be repaired. Unfortunately, pumping too much money into that would have the same ill-effects of being over-insured.

Anyway, I suspect none of that is inspirational to you because you seem to want solutions for how government can be make sure that everyone has all the health care they need. But I simply don't think the government should be doing that.



> > C'mon. Don't evade the issue. WHO will control prices? ie who will control how much vendors (people) can charge and how much consumers (people) will pay? Any chance it will be the same people who control regulation currently (industry lobbyists)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



EXACTLY! This is precisely what I wanted to get into. Did you read up on corporatism any yet? Because what you describe above is the essence of it. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, corporatism isn't about government policy favoring business. The corporation referred to in corporatism isn't specifically a business - though it can be. It's referring to any organized power bloc with an interest in controlling policy. All of the groups you describe above are 'corporations' in the context of corporatism.

Corporatism is a fundamentally different form of government (as opposed to liberal democracy) that swaps out individual rights and rule of law for group rights and rule by decree. It sets up government as power broker, horse-trading with all the 'vested interests' to share power and control. Instead of law based on the equal protection of universal rights, we get government that dispenses privilege and penalty to corporate (in the corporatism sense) groups. I don't think most liberals have stopped to consider how much these kinds of policies conflict with their nominally virtuous convictions.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 28, 2013)

dblack said:


> If you're asking me personally, my gut reaction is - none of your business! And that actually speaks to the point I'm making, as well as being snarky.  Seriously though, the entire argument I'm making is that no one, whether they claim to represent the majority or not, should be allowed to dictate how we deal with something so personal. I'm arguing for keeping alternatives - all of them - *legal*. Instead, we're committing everyone to the same sinking ship.
> 
> If your asking what kinds of reforms I'd make if it were up to me, I'd first undo all the incentives that have established employer-provided, group insurance as the norm. Those of us who have insurance, in general, are over-insured.
> 
> ...



First, thank you for the well stated answer.   I have toyed with the basic concept of insurance only for big ticket stuff and out of pocket for everything else.   If you had asked me 10 years ago, my response would probably have been similar.  

But the more I grew to understand medicine the more I realized that it doesn't work.   Here's why.

So far as I'm concerned there are two goals of primary importance.   First, is of course the health and well being of people.    Second being keeping cost down.  

In cases where people had no coverage for the little things, what all to often happens is they do not go to the doctor except when they feel they really need it.    At which point it is often too late.   So something that may have needed an antibiotic in pill form now needs an IV and a hospital stay.   

This is why most insurers pay 100% for free checkups and common testing.   It actually saves them money.  

By saying insurance, be it government or private, will only pick up the tab if things get prohibitively expensive,  it wouldn't necessarily save us money.  More importantly, it would have a negative impact on peoples health. 

There may be room for some middle ground.   But it's a difficult row to hoe, no doubt about it.  



> EXACTLY! This is precisely what I wanted to get into. Did you read up on corporatism any yet? Because what you describe above is the essence of it. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, corporatism isn't about government policy favoring business. The corporation referred to in corporatism isn't specifically a business - though it can be. It's referring to any organized power bloc with an interest in controlling policy. All of the groups you describe above are 'corporations' in the context of corporatism.
> 
> Corporatism is a fundamentally different form of government (as opposed to liberal democracy) that swaps out individual rights and rule of law for group rights and rule by decree. It sets up government as power broker, horse-trading with all the 'vested interests' to share power and control. Instead of law based on the equal protection of universal rights, we get government that dispenses privilege and penalty to corporate (in the corporatism sense) groups. I don't think most liberals have stopped to consider how much these kinds of policies conflict with their nominally virtuous convictions.



To paraphrase one of our recent VP's, "We work with the government we have, not the government we want to have...".

I'm not arguing with you.   While I know it's sacrilege to say, the founding fathers made some mistakes.   Every position in Washington should be term limited.   Every dollar they take in should be public knowledge.   And more besides...

But as I don't see it changing anytime soon, what is the answer?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Every position in Washington should be term limited.



Dear, every position could still be filled by liberals and communists.

The correct change is obviously the one China just made, i.e, the change to capitalism. 

As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism-right?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 28, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Every position in Washington should be term limited.
> ...



Admittedly I am flummoxed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



why not ask questions until you get the basics down? Do you want to be a liberal all your life?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 28, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Your clearly sagacious nature is beyond the limits of my obviously intrepid intelligence.    *backs slowly away....


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Dear, backing away all you life is how you got to be a liberal!!! Sorry!!
You must lean in as the lady from Facebook proclaims!!


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 31, 2013)

If Obamacare is intended towards a single payer system, it sure is doing a lousy job of it.  The ACA exchange should have been made more attractive in lowering costs.  It should have been set up as a one payer system instead of allowing the big healthcare insurance companies to profit from it.

It should have allowed small and large businesses to join the exchange with tax incentives and be affordable to their employees in lower premium share and lower out of pocket costs.  The government is big enough to afford this transition and it would have directly affected all the healthcare insurances in either lowering their costs or go out of business.

The ACA did accomplish by setting premium costs with all high deductibles for each of the income levels are all much higher then employer coverage.  This was the biggest incentive for health insurance the okay to raise their rates since 2009 on false premises.

In reality, how is the ACA affecting health insurance companies to justify raising costs?

1. Coverage for young adults under 26 on their parents policy doesn't increase cost since this pool is healthy.  It does provide added profit if you are a single parent who now pay family coverage instead of single coverage.
2.  The insurance companies now must pay for preventive care with no co-pays or out of pocket.  This does not add cost since many healthy people usually won't go to the doctor unless a health issue creates it.
3. They now have to cover pre-existing conditions will increase cost but so has the premiums on this group with much higher deductibles.   Higher deductibles usually means that the insurance company is only actually paying for are doctor visits while all lab work, x-rays, diagnostic testing will all be applied to their deductible.

Most people even individuals in the high risk pool seldom meet their deductible each year in order for the insurance company to start paying their 80% or what their contract dictates. This is the biggest healthcare scam in human history and the saddest part is most people don't even realize it.

They don't take the time to review their medical claims and look at actual charges verses reimbursement nor take into account what is coming out of their paychecks in premium share and what they actually spent in out of pocket expenses verses what their insurance paid for the year.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 31, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> This is the biggest healthcare scam in human history and the saddest part is most people don't even realize it.



well it cant be much worse than the current socialist system, and perhaps its sudden failure will push us toward a capitalist system.
By 2016 or so the results should be in for all to see-right?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 31, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> well it cant be much worse than the current socialist system, and perhaps its sudden failure will push us toward a capitalist system.
> By 2016 or so the results should be in for all to see-right?




Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system that pushed the government to introduce restrictions on the insurance company.

Capitalism failure US healthcare leading to Medicare.  The continuing failure of the capitalist system has lead to this point.  No other first world country is in danger of being bankrupted by it's healthcare system except the US.  No other first world country has ever had to completely reform it's health care system.

But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system .



too stupid as always. The six major government health care programsMedicare, Medicaid, the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Department of Defense TRICARE and TRICARE for Life programs (DOD TRICARE), the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) program, and the Indian Health Service (IHS) program are not capitalist!!!!Can you grasp that????

Plus, the government has made competition illegal between health care insurance companies!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow,so very very slow


----------



## dblack (Mar 31, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.



Once the mandate goes into effect, they'll certainly be running the show. With ACA, the insurance industry has made us an "offer" we can't refuse.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 31, 2013)

dblack said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > But then, you're the only country in the world where private, capitalist insurance companies have been running the show.
> ...



Dragon lady has no idea whatsoever that liberals made competition among health insurance companies illegal in 1946 or that China has been growing 7-10% a year for 30 years under capitalsim.

She is a typical liberals. Everything she feels is based on pure ignorance


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 31, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Edward, it was the FAILURE of the current capitalist system .
> ...



The six major government health programs are paid by the tax payers and up until the recession they had surpluses except for Medicaid.  You might want consider surpluses as government profit since they used those surpluses to build bigger government with out any intention of paying back the public for those surpluses.

In order to pay back those surpluses the money must come from us in increasing taxes. There is no competition between healthcare companies because they all raise their rates at the same time. There is not a big cost difference from one company to another.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 9, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> There is no competition between healthcare companies because they all raise their rates at the same time. There is not a big cost difference from one company to another.



well the Obama exchanges may help with this, but still as far as I know interestate competition will be illegal.


----------



## JoeNormal (Apr 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Hey Edward, why don't you read your last 100 posts and see if you can discern a pattern.  No hurry, we'll wait.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



"The Communist Party of China (CPC) carefully directs the countrys growth. Buttressed by government subsidies, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) maintain a dominating presence in the domestic market  largely in the banking, transportation, telecommunication and energy sectors  and often prevent competition. In all, the public sector accounts for approximately 30% of Chinas economy. Government presence in the market is apparent in its regulation of the RMB and reserve requirements for banks. Though regulations for the latter have been loosening steadily in an effort to encourage loan availability, SOEs usually receive preferential treatment."

They may have capitalist aspects to their economy.  But they are still more regulated and much more draconian in their regulations than here in the US.  

It's also important to remember that China has a debt problem not all that different from our own. 

Fitch Lowers Rating on China Local-Currency Debt - WSJ.com


----------



## dblack (Apr 10, 2013)

Underhill said:


> "The Communist Party of China (CPC) carefully directs the countrys growth. Buttressed by government subsidies, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) maintain a dominating presence in the domestic market  largely in the banking, transportation, telecommunication and energy sectors  and often prevent competition. In all, the public sector accounts for approximately 30% of Chinas economy. Government presence in the market is apparent in its regulation of the RMB and reserve requirements for banks. Though regulations for the latter have been loosening steadily in an effort to encourage loan availability, SOEs usually receive preferential treatment."
> 
> They may have capitalist aspects to their economy.  But they are still more regulated and much more draconian in their regulations than here in the US.
> 
> ...



The Chinese are moving toward corporatism. Same as the US. We're just coming at it from different starting positions.


----------



## Beachboy (Apr 10, 2013)

A friend of ours recently qualified for Social Security Disability, but under the current program his Medicare will not kick in until January, 2014.  His COBRA, (insurance provided after being laid off by his employer for disability) ends in May, so he needs to pick up health coverage from May until January.

Buying a bridge policy is really difficult as The Affordable Care Act, (Obamacare is just starting to kick in), so our friend has been put in the State insurance pool based on his income.  The problem is that for the time being pre-existing conditions, (such as his disability), will count against him.  They will accept him, but he will pay more.

Ironically, our friend paid $200 a month for health insurance to his employer.  $420 a month for his COBRA, and will pay $339 a month for his bridge policy, and $120 a month when he gets on Medicare.  These rates are insane for someone on $1,200 a month Social Security.  

However, depending upon how quickly the State implements the Affordable Care Act, our friend's payment for the bridge policy could go down to $169 a month.  Obamacare looks real good to me, but Medicare looks even better.  This changed my view of the Affordable Care Act, it looks a lot better than the media has described it.  Yes, the Affordable Care Act is now law, and we are only getting a taste of its implementation.  I for one am keeping a newly open mind to Obamacare.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 10, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I for one am keeping a newly open mind to Obamacare.



me too, if it works maybe the government can take over all of our major industries. After all, only good folks work for the government and on top of being good they know exactly what to do too! In fact, I'll bet we could get some of the old Chinese and Soviet bureaucrats to help us get started! Many of them are probably unemployed thanks to the idiotic switch to capitalism!!


----------



## Beachboy (Apr 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > I for one am keeping a newly open mind to Obamacare.
> ...



I feel sorry for your cynicism.  Research has proven that Social Security is more cost effective than *any* privately owned insurance company.  Frankly, I trust fewer people than I have fingers on one hand, but I trust the Government more than the Fortune 500 any day of the week. The Government will not put an unsafe product on the market simply to make a profit.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 12, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> I feel sorry for your cynicism.  Research has proven that Social Security is more cost effective than *any* privately owned insurance company.



sadly you're a lying liberal soviet idiot. SS steals 15% of your lifetime income. In a private account 15%  would yield $1.4 million at retirement not the dog food money you get from SS!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!! MSSB is where liberals come to die! Do you have any liberal friends who might want to come here to experiene what you just did??? Send them over!!


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> sadly you're a lying liberal soviet idiot. SS steals 15% of your lifetime income. In a private account 15%  would yield $1.4 million at retirement not the dog food money you get from SS!!



This may be true but 95% of people don't have any retirement savings at all, so the "dog food money" is a whole lot better than what they would have without SS.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no competition between healthcare companies because they all raise their rates at the same time. There is not a big cost difference from one company to another.
> ...



Wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 13, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > lynn63 said:
> ...



of course if it was wrong you'd present your evidence. A liberal will lack the IQ to know that evidence is necessary

House revives bill to allow interstate health insurance sales ...
Jun 6, 2011 ... Senate Democrats and President Obama oppose the legislation, but ... lead 
sponsor of the interstate insurance measure, known as the Health Care Choice 
.... on a model written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, ...
House revives bill to allow interstate health insurance sales - amednews.com


----------



## Beachboy (Apr 13, 2013)

*Here are the facts on Health Care costs from PBS News*

Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour​


----------



## Beachboy (Apr 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > I feel sorry for your cynicism.  Research has proven that Social Security is more cost effective than *any* privately owned insurance company.
> ...



As usual not a fact based link to support a word you say.  But, I have one...........

I did not join this website to research for the ignorant.  Here is a graph of Social Security Administrative costs which are less than 1% of their total cost.* http://http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html*  Private Insurance companies run 12-17%.  In the future please Google the facts before posting.  Thank you.







And, by the way I am not a liberal, I am an independant.  You use the  word "liberal" like it is a dirty word.  It is no more dirty than  "conservative."​


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 13, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> *Here are the facts on Health Care costs from PBS News*
> 
> Health Costs: How the U.S. Compares With Other Countries | PBS NewsHour​


Alas, many cons believe, "you get what you pay for". Obviously, it's not true.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 14, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



dear do you  have the IQ to figure out what an average American would retire with if he invested 15% of his lifetime income in a private account???


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Beachboy said:
> ...



Dear BB:
Look at the way the prison system is run.
It puts the public at risk, even releases dangerous sick people without notification,
and keeps going as is just to keep contractors and bureaucrats paid and in control.

the school system has gone down where there is no check on spending and policy.
the public housing system was always run as a scam to profit off poverty
and give contracts/jobs/control to govt bureaucrats.

ask anyone who has suffering grievances from the mental health,
prison system or public housing/school system and got treated like a number.
jsut warehousing people for profit for those in charge
at expense of taxpayers and public health and safety

sorry to be so strong about this issue
the govt is like other collective institutions and needs to be directly checked
as with corporations and other organizations that can be abused and are.


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > I feel sorry for your cynicism.  Research has proven that Social Security is more cost effective than *any* privately owned insurance company.
> ...



Dear EB and BB: to be fair I'm going toThank both your replies
because I appreciate you both for standing up for your views.
I think there is good in both your information/positions and
I don't want you to lose that by targeting each other personally.

May I challenge you both to review the lifetime financial planning strategies
taught and followed by the mentors with Lifestyles Unlimited Real Estate Investing Education and Mentoring | Lifestyles Unlimited
it is a professional real estate investment training network,
not a charity program, though I firmly believe all citizens and charities
should learn to do these same investment strategies to break the poverty
cycle and mentality and become productive business leaders or members
of teams contributing to economic helath and development by financial independence

the founders and members teach that you cannot retire
comfortably depending on 401K or SS and govt.

they compare the money invested if you pull it out of these other
accounts, including IRA and CD etc, and put into rental houses
that yield equity, cash flow, and tax deductions as business expenses.

they calculate deals in advance, and only choose to invest in set ups
that will yield 20-40% return, and they show you all th emath on
each case a member closes on that yields profits, monthly revenue
and equity captured that is used to leverage future financing on the next
investment.

can I ask you to review the cases posted on their webiste
and tell me honestly if that's not a better way to teach people
to invest their money to become independent of welfare? thanks.

if you want to do q&a the heads of the group answer questions
directly by email or by radio show streamed online or on air in different cities.
Del and Steve are both straightforward downtoearth wonderful guys,
who figured out a model that works and mentor others to retire as millionaires
within 5-10 years, so they love their work helping others to become financially independent for life.
I see both of you are intelligent and analytical, and care about what is
best for people and the country; so please do not waste words jumping on each other
when I see you have so much value and work in your background experience
and knowledge to share with others. please let me ecnourage and support you
both in sharing what you know so we can all benefit! thank you both!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 14, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> Frankly, I trust fewer people than I have fingers on one hand, but I trust the Government more than the Fortune 500 any day of the week. The Government will not put an unsafe product on the market simply to make a profit.



too stupid!!! like government people are less likely to be bought off than corporate people!!! Dont you read about the Chinese government bureaucrats who are executed for taking bribes and thus endangering the entire country!!

Without libturd regulators a company must have the safest best cheapest products in the entire world or go bankrupt! With libturd regulators everyone assumes things are safe because the government guarantees it!!

Under capitalism millions of consumers are the regulators, under liberalism a few libturd bureaucrats are the regulators!!

Over your head???

 the real question for liberals is, "who will regulate the regulators"???


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2013)

Beachboy said:


> As usual not a fact based link to support a word you say.  But, I have one...........
> 
> I did not join this website to research for the ignorant.  Here is a graph of Social Security Administrative costs which are less than 1% of their total cost.* http://http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/admin.html*  Private Insurance companies run 12-17%.  In the future please Google the facts before posting.  Thank you.
> 
> ...



Dear BB Good for you for standing up for yourself and not getting bullied down.
BTW you can be both, independent and also more liberal in comparison with EB views.
I consider myself progressive, I sympathize with the liberal push for inclusion and equal representation of minority interests while on that token I include conservative views like prolife equally an interest to be included as prochoice. so i tend to stick to constitutional principles where everyone claims equal representation and protection for their views.

pls see my msg to both you and BB asking your opinion on other ways to invest
that help ppl become independent and not depend on govt welfare or even 401K
thinking that will cover their costs of retirement.

can you review that and tell me what you think
if teaching people to invest their money in teams directly into financial independent
business plans would be better than teaching dependence on govt for welfare? thanks!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 14, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> can you review that and tell me what you think
> if teaching people to invest their money in teams directly into financial independent
> business plans would be better than teaching dependence on govt for welfare? thanks!



dear, people on welfare would have no idea where to invest and have no money to invest . Sorry


----------



## emilynghiem (Apr 14, 2013)

Dear EB no need to go to China, party and govt leaders here are bought out easily.
they are just too busy pointing the finger at each other to hold their own parties accountable. otherwise if we all decided to go after each instance, we'd expose them all.

as for BB I am actually glad to see you still hve faith in govt
I hope this means you actually take responsibility for your support
and you regularly contact, push and check things through your reps.

if you let them run the show without chekcing what they are doing with tax money
then you are part of the problem of why corrupt things happen and no one corrects it.

so it's good to have that faith, just please i urge you to take responsibility for it.
we need more ppl like you, or else govt gets abused just like anything else
(if you don't believe me, look up legal abuse and judicial abuse and see what's going on)



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly, I trust fewer people than I have fingers on one hand, but I trust the Government more than the Fortune 500 any day of the week. The Government will not put an unsafe product on the market simply to make a profit.
> ...



we the people. but we need to work together EB,
if we team up and go after corruption/abuse to be corrected
we could pressure govt to answer. but if we spin our wheels
arguing amongst ourselves the foxes are cleaning out the henhouse
while we are not paying attention. we need to team up by party or in pairs
and focus where libs and cons, occupy and tea party, agree something stinks


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 14, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> we need to team up by party or in pairs
> and focus where libs and cons, occupy and tea party, agree something stinks



dear opposite philosophies  don't agree; that is why they are opposites. THe wisdom of the ages is embodied in the voting booth where you must choose bewteen freedom and government.

You need to decide what side you are on and why. Lets us know when you have grown up.


----------



## Beachboy (Apr 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Beachboy said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Don't patronize me with "Dear."  Where were you in 2008 when the markets crashed?  Private sector investments risk loss, Social Security does not.

However, I would be willing to let you sign a waiver that if your investments tanked, you would have to go without any resources from the government.

Again, no fact links to verify a word you say.  Mere righty blather.  The sooner we get your kind into a grave, the sooner the rest of us can enjoy progress!


----------



## rdean (Apr 15, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



I suspect most don't even have health care.  Look at their teeth.

They just hate Obama.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 15, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



cons are not communist so yes against single payer. Insurance companies would reduce price and raise quality just as computer companies do if liberals had not made competition illegal in health insurance.

Liberals lack the IQ to understand simple concepts

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?


----------



## dblack (Apr 16, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



Single payer would create one insurance company. Would that be better than the cartel we have now? Hard to say. With the corporate sellouts populating Congress, "single-payer" would almost certainly be 'outsourced' to a corporate provider anyway, so - likely things would be worse.

In any case, it wasn't the cons that squashed single payer. PPACA received exactly one Republican vote. *The Democrats could have passed anything they wanted. They didn't want single payer. They wanted the corporatist cluster-fuck we got. They sold us out, and you continue to support them.*


----------



## Underhill (Apr 16, 2013)

The reality is our whole country is corrupt.   The idea that any political party is better than the other is silly.   They all are guilty.

But the notion that the corporate world is any better is laughable.   Who do you think is buying off the politicians?

The reality is our country is headed for some serious problems unless the people wake up to these facts.    And as long as people are kept busy talking about libturds and repukes, the problem will never be resolved.    They both suck ass and I think a lot of the party wrangling is designed to take our focus off the real problems.

I marginally have picked democrats over republicans because of social issues.   But in the big picture, both sides need to be taken to the cleaners.   But it would take a lot, since those in power have a great deal of sway with our media and our government.

I suspect if McCain had won the election the health care bill would have been very similar to what we have now.   Remember, he was promising a health care bill too.   And he would have been talking to the same insurance companies.


----------



## dblack (Apr 16, 2013)

Underhill said:


> But the notion that the corporate world is any better is laughable.   Who do you think is buying off the politicians?



The notion that it's a choice between giving up our freedom to corporations or giving up our freedom to government is a false dilemma. And it's killing us.



> The reality is our country is headed for some serious problems unless the people wake up to these facts.    And as long as people are kept busy talking about libturds and repukes, the problem will never be resolved.    They both suck ass and I think a lot of the party wrangling is designed to take our focus off the real problems.
> 
> I marginally have picked democrats over republicans because of social issues.   But in the big picture, both sides need to be taken to the cleaners.   But it would take a lot, since those in power have a great deal of sway with our media and our government.
> 
> I suspect if McCain had won the election the health care bill would have been very similar to what we have now.   Remember, he was promising a health care bill too.   And he would have been talking to the same insurance companies.



Yep.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > But the notion that the corporate world is any better is laughable.   Who do you think is buying off the politicians?
> ...



Perhaps in some things.   In healthcare, I don't think there is an alternative.   I know you disagree, and I suspect neither of us will change our minds. 

The bigger problem right now is, there is no choice.    Government and corporate interest are so intertwined...

I think this is much of the reason so many Americans distrust the government, whether they realize it or not.   Other countries may have some issues, but talking to Canadians, and looking at their government, I just don't see the same issues.


----------



## dblack (Apr 16, 2013)

Underhill said:


> The bigger problem right now is, there is no choice.    Government and corporate interest are so intertwined...


Exactly. But how do so many of those who get this advocate policy that deepens the collusion?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 16, 2013)

Underhill said:


> But the notion that the corporate world is any better is laughable.   Who do you think is buying off the politicians?



dear, in a Republican world you don't buy off politicians because it would be a waste of money, they don't have any power!!! In a libturd world you do as a matter of course because stuff like Obamacare is 100% controlled by politicians.

In a Republican world a corporation produces the best products in the world at the lowest price or they go bankrupt!! Thats it, period!!!!

Its inconceivable to Republicans that liberals lack the IQ to understand that!! How can our country be saved if liberals are allowed to vote? Its 100% anti-democratic to allow it unless democracy is supposed to be rule by the stupid!!


----------



## Underhill (Apr 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > The bigger problem right now is, there is no choice.    Government and corporate interest are so intertwined...
> ...



What difference does it make?   I paid through the nose before, I'll pay through the nose now.   But at least now more people will be covered.

It boils down to empathy.   I was the guy with 3 kids who went without insurance for 8+ years.   It sucked.  And I won't forget it.

Most of the guys I work with are republicans.   And almost to a man, none of them have been in that position.   Every one that I have talked to have worked here (a good company to work for) for decades right out of college.    Their idea of hardship was when the company quit letting them have a liquid lunch. 

In contrast my life involves a combination of some poor decisions and piss poor luck that left me with low paying shit jobs for the first 10 years of my adult life.     I always worked, probably harder than most of these guys much of the time.   But I never made any money.

Now that I am in their club, they look at me like I am nuts because I empathize with those in my former situation.    I suspect that same attitude is prevalent among republicans.   Maybe not all, but it certainly is among those I have talked to.


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



The difference is, it worsens the problem you were complaining about (corporate/government collusion) without doing anything to address the core problem (inflated health care prices). Empathy is crucial. But misguided empathy is dangerous when it comes to state policy.



> Most of the guys I work with are republicans.   And almost to a man, none of them have been in that position.   Every one that I have talked to have worked here (a good company to work for) for decades right out of college. Their idea of hardship was when the company quit letting them have a liquid lunch.
> 
> In contrast my life involves a combination of some poor decisions and piss poor luck that left me with low paying shit jobs for the first 10 years of my adult life.     I always worked, probably harder than most of these guys much of the time.   But I never made any money.
> 
> Now that I am in their club, they look at me like I am nuts because I empathize with those in my former situation.    I suspect that same attitude is prevalent among republicans.   Maybe not all, but it certainly is among those I have talked to.



Not sure what Republicans really think. But my story is remarkably similar to yours (raised my two sons on my own - much of it without insurance). What I saw was a frustrating situation where ordinary, routine health care was too expensive for ordinary people. That's not sustainable - regardless of insurance coverage.

Health _insurance_ is not health _care_. Conflating the two is a mistake and keeps most of the reform effort mired in confusion - confusion that the corporatists are only too happy to take advantage of.


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, in a Republican world you don't buy off politicians because it would be a waste of money, they don't have any power!!! In a libturd world you do as a matter of course because stuff like Obamacare is 100% controlled by politicians.
> 
> In a Republican world a corporation produces the best products in the world at the lowest price or they go bankrupt!! Thats it, period!!!!
> 
> Its inconceivable to Republicans that liberals lack the IQ to understand that!! How can our country be saved if liberals are allowed to vote? Its 100% anti-democratic to allow it unless democracy is supposed to be rule by the stupid!!



In a Republican world, Monsanto can sue all of the farmers who don't deal with them into bankruptcy and poison the world because they have enough money to do that.

It is inconceivable to Republicans that corporations will do evil in order to make profits they didn't earn.

In a Republican world, he who is large enough to price the competition out of business, gets a monopoly.

It is inconceivable for Eddie to understand that corporations have no morals and no ethics, and that the public needs to be protected from them.  Because Monsanto has been convicted of poisioning people.  

It is 100% stupid to think that corporations will do the right thing, but that's Eddie for you.


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> It is inconceivable for Eddie to understand that corporations have no morals and no ethics, and that the public needs to be protected from them.  Because Monsanto has been convicted of poisioning people.
> 
> It is 100% stupid to think that corporations will do the right thing, but that's Eddie for you.



Ed's out to lunch. But are you willing to consider your own blind spots? Do you really expect government that is utterly and completely beholden to corporate interests to _protect_ you from them?? The only way to strike at excessive corporate power is to remove the foundations of that power - the special privilege and protection _they_ receive from the state in the form of ill-conceived regulation and policy. The sheer fact that the insurance industry has enough influence to pass a law requiring us to buy their product blows my mind. Even though I could truthfully say "I saw it coming", I never believed it would happen in my lifetime. That it has, and that so many so-called liberals are cheering it, is depressing as hell.


----------



## lynn63 (Apr 17, 2013)

The government passed a law that exempted Monsanto from any liability claims so now they are untouchable.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I might agree with you except for one small problem.   It doesn't matter.

As I pointed out, support Obama, you get Obamacare.   Support McCain, you most likely get the same thing.

Acting as though there is another option is delusional.   The only real difference would be if McCain were the guy in charge, republicans would be defending the plan and most democrats would be fighting it as the worst thing since the Holocaust. 



dblack said:


> > Most of the guys I work with are republicans.   And almost to a man, none of them have been in that position.   Every one that I have talked to have worked here (a good company to work for) for decades right out of college. Their idea of hardship was when the company quit letting them have a liquid lunch.
> >
> > In contrast my life involves a combination of some poor decisions and piss poor luck that left me with low paying shit jobs for the first 10 years of my adult life.     I always worked, probably harder than most of these guys much of the time.   But I never made any money.
> >
> ...



Yep, you keep saying that.   But I don't see any examples world wide of a working health care system that doesn't involve insurance in one form or another.


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2013)

Underhill said:


> I might agree with you except for one small problem.   It doesn't matter.
> 
> As I pointed out, support Obama, you get Obamacare.   Support McCain, you most likely get the same thing.
> 
> Acting as though there is another option is delusional.   The only real difference would be if McCain were the guy in charge, republicans would be defending the plan and most democrats would be fighting it as the worst thing since the Holocaust.



That's not a 'small problem', it's the whole enchilada. But the delusion is in assuming we must accept it. We won't get either of the major parties to change, or encourage a third to challenge them, until we quit supporting them. As long as they can count on our votes no matter what kind of manure they shovel our way, they'll continue along the same path. 



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Health _insurance_ is not health _care_. Conflating the two is a mistake and keeps most of the reform effort mired in confusion - confusion that the corporatists are only too happy to take advantage of.
> ...



I'm not looking to create a health care 'system'. How other individuals (here, or in other countries) finance their health care is not my concern*. Personally, I happen to think insurance makes sense for covering catastrophic illness, but it's a waste of money to pay to be 'covered' for things you could afford to pay for out of pocket. It's simply unnecessary overhead. The problem is that decades of bad regulatory and tax policies have driven prices beyond reason. Fixing that should be the first priority in any real reform effort. With PPACA, it's an afterthought at best, if, indeed, it doesn't make the problem even worse

.

*To clarify, I do _care_ about people who can't afford needed health care. But I consider the issue of social safety nets for the poor to be an entirely different (though obviously related) problem from fixing the health care market.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > I might agree with you except for one small problem.   It doesn't matter.
> ...



I've advocated for the same many times in many places.   But as things stand now, it just isn't going to happen.   Americans are more partisan than ever since the civil war.   The number of people who are willing to concede any problems within their own party are very small. 

It's often surreal when I read post from people like EdwardBaiamonte talking about the utopia that is the republican or democratic parties.    It's laughable.



dblack said:


> > dblack said:
> >
> >
> > > Health _insurance_ is not health _care_. Conflating the two is a mistake and keeps most of the reform effort mired in confusion - confusion that the corporatists are only too happy to take advantage of.
> ...



Well, I struggle to see it.   Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are saying.   

You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.  

I just don't see it ever happening.   Under anyone.   It's an anarchist pipe dream. 



> *To clarify, I do _care_ about people who can't afford needed health care. But I consider the issue of social safety nets for the poor to be an entirely different (though obviously related) problem from fixing the health care market.



I agree.   And I see that as one of the fallacies of Obamacare.   It was never about fixing the problems in the health care market.   That much is clear.   About the only thing it does is cover more people who are currently at the fringes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 17, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> In a Republican world, he who is large enough to price the competition out of business, gets a monopoly.



too stupid given that anti-trust laws have long made monopolies illegal and said anti trust laws are supported by both parties.

How insane to hate corporations when we all work for them
for our daily bread, and consume their products with what they pay us to have be the richest people in human history!!

Do you hate your children and parents too? Maybe Marx didn't brainwash you to hate your own children!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 17, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Because Monsanto has been convicted of poisioning people.
> 
> It is 100% stupid to think that corporations will do the right thing, but that's Eddie for you.



dear, people are convicted of crimes all the time so why single out only corporations for your Marxist hatred?? Do you love corporations for the food, clothing and shelter they provide us everyday, or merely hate them when they commit a crime? Do you hate your children when they misbehave??

See why we say a liberal will be slow??


----------



## dblack (Apr 17, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > That's not a 'small problem', it's the whole enchilada. But the delusion is in assuming we must accept it. We won't get either of the major parties to change, or encourage a third to challenge them, until we quit supporting them. As long as they can count on our votes no matter what kind of manure they shovel our way, they'll continue along the same path.
> ...



It already is happening for many of us. The only vote any of us can control is our own, and I'm not about to waste mine on another status quo corporatist. As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote. 



> You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.
> 
> I just don't see it ever happening.   Under anyone.   It's an anarchist pipe dream.



Nah... that's not what I'm saying at all. I specifically addressed _bad_ regulation and _bad_ tax policy. Regulations are just laws - specifically laws that dictate conformity. When such conformity has universal benefit, and costs very little, both in terms of money and lost freedom, when it enjoys near universal support of the public, it makes sense to codify it in law. Think stop signs and speed limits, for example.

But when laws benefit select classes of people or businesses, at the expense of others, when they represent a loss of fundamental freedoms, when they are passed with minimal support - and when they are loaded down with 'unintended' consequences (which, are often quite 'intended' by those pushing for the laws in question), they need to be reconsidered, and repealed if possible.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 17, 2013)

dblack said:


> As long as the Republicans and Democrats continue to squelch the pro-freedom, pro-justice voices in their ranks (Paul, Kucinich, etc...), they'll not get my vote.



dear how can Kucinich be pro freedom when he is a libturd socialist???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 17, 2013)

Underhill said:


> You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.
> 
> I just don't see it ever happening.   Under anyone.   It's an anarchist pipe dream.



1) capitalism is not anarchy

2) prices fall in computers and health care if libturds keep far far away and allow capitalism!!

Why do you think China just switched to capitalism??????

See why we must be 100% certain a liberal will be slow!!!


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 17, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.
> ...


Under capitalism the cost of health care in the US has gone very high ... to the highest in the world.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's hard to argue against such a vague position.   But okay.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 18, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > You are essentially advocating that we should get rid of all regulation of the insurance industry, get rid of all government health care, destroy the entire bureaucracy and all the prices will fall back to a reasonable level and all will be well.
> ...



Keep using China as an example if you want to be written off by everyone.   It's absurd.


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Is my position vague, or just not encapsulated in your dichotomy? 

It's tiresome when reasonable calls for cutting back on overreaching government are met with screeching accusations of anarchy. Surely you can see how regulatory schemes are twisted to serve ulterior motives. The health care and health insurance industries are replete with this kind of corruption. There's nothing vague about it.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Of course you are being vague.   Give me specifics.  Which laws or regulations are you referring to?   

Yes, I called it anarchy.  Simply because you haven't made it clear exactly what you are against.   All regulations?   Specific regulations?   Or are you just regurgitating talking points?    I am no mind reader.  

I have no doubt there is corruption.   Never argued otherwise.   But until we get into specifics it's hard to tell if it's a small localized problem with a couple regs. or a pandemic throughout the system.


----------



## dblack (Apr 18, 2013)

Underhill said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Well, you're just being argumentative now. "Talking points"?

I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem. If we can't agree on that, going into specifics is a waste of time. Particular with people who see any and all deregulation efforts as 'anarchy'. 

It's sort of like arguing with the war mongers who label anyone who dares to suggest our military shouldn't dominate every corner of the planet as an 'isolationist'.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Of course I would agree that if there are ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes, they could be the problem.  Who wouldn't?

But if you are unwilling to get into specifics then I have to assume it's because you have none.    You must have heard this stuff on some talk show or commentary and it sounded good.    If I am wrong, then feel free to demonstrate your knowledge on the subject.


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 18, 2013)

Further upthread, Eddie asked why 80% of all drug and medical patents are filed in the US and the answer is very simple:  All companies worldwide file medical patents in the US because the US patents laws offer the BEST protection of their intellectual property for the longest period of time, thereby enabling the company to make the maximum amount of money possible from their research.  It's not because all of these discoveries are coming out of US medicine, as Eddie would have you believe.


----------



## Antares (Apr 18, 2013)

Objection your honor, speculation.

Even though Ed is shall we say....a bit on the fringe.




Dragonlady said:


> Further upthread, Eddie asked why 80% of all drug and medical patents are filed in the US and the answer is very simple:  All companies worldwide file medical patents in the US because the US patents laws offer the BEST protection of their intellectual property for the longest period of time, thereby enabling the company to make the maximum amount of money possible from their research.  It's not because all of these discoveries are coming out of US medicine, as Eddie would have you believe.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 18, 2013)

dblack said:


> I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem.



yes this is why the USSR and Red China failed for example. A liberal lacks the IQ to know that regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and those regulators need regulators and so on until you have capitalism wherein everyone is a regulator based on the shopping decisions millions of regulator shoppers make!!

Jefferson said it better than I can:

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings[regulators] to govern him? Let history answer this question". -Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Underhill (Apr 19, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to establish agreement on the idea that ill-conceived, poorly operated regulatory regimes are a large part of the problem.
> ...



China and Russia were communist.   Better to compare with Britain, Japan, Norway, Brazil, Sweden... you know, every other non-communist civilized nation on the planet. 

As for Jefferson, I doubt you have any clue what the fuck he was even talking about.


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 19, 2013)

Roo said:


> Objection your honor, speculation.



This is a report by the issued by the US Patent Office on prolific inventors for the period 1988 to 1997.  The country of residence of the inventor is shown.  Also shown is the corporation which received an assignment of the patent.  Lots and lots of German and Japanese companies are getting US patents and assigning those patents to large biotech corporations.  In fact, more than half of these "prolific inventors" are resident somewhere outside the US.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/inv_prol.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 19, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Objection your honor, speculation.
> ...



Dragonlady is a very typical America hating liberal too dumb to know that she's been brainwashed. Over half of all patents originate in America by her own numbers. Not bad for 4% of 
the world population. More importantly 18 of the top 20 universities are in America so we probably trained 95% of the world patent holders!! In health the numbers are even more favorable to America!! Dragonlady and her family own their lives to American capitalism but lack the IQ to know it let alone to be appreciative and thankful!!

I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 23, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.



I don't believe you.   If she said that she is a fucking idiot.   

Here are a few dozen in India.  

ICMR Permanent Institutes

A few in China.

Welcome to China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences

One of dozens of research groups in Sweden...

Medicine and health - Vetenskapsrådet [NS4 version]

Here is a medical research council in South Africa.   

SA Medical Research Council

I found these in a 2 minute internet search.   There are thousands more.   All around the globe.

Anyone who would say "its all done here" is a fucking idiot.   And I doubt a researcher from Bumfuck Community College is that moronic, say nothing about Yale...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > I recall speaking to woman who was doing medical research at Yale. I asked her how she was sure the same work was not being done abroad. She said I don't even bother to look since its all done here.
> ...



dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!

Always remember USMB is where liberals come to die!
Do you have any liberal friends you can send to the slaughter??


----------



## Bomboozle (May 3, 2013)

dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!

Always remember USMB is where liberals come to die!
Do you have any liberal friends you can send to the slaughter??[/QUOTE]

You might want to go back and do a little more homework on patents -- yes, the U.S. is a major hub, however that's not the end of the story by any stretch of the imagination.  I highly doubt "we have" 70% of recent patents.  Just because a patent issues in the United States, doesn't automatically give an invention protection elsewhere in the world.  You might want to familiarize yourself with WIPO, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, EPO, ARIPO, SIPO, KIPO, just to name a few.


----------



## Bomboozle (May 3, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...


----------



## Dragonlady (May 3, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!



Eddie, you really are too dumb to be one person.  More than half of all medical patents issued in the United States, are issued to "inventor's" in other countries - Germany and Japan hold a lot of them.  They apply for patents in the US because the US patents are for the longest period of time.

I linked to the Report of the US Patent Office showing the country of origin for the patent.  Of course you didn't bother to read the link.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 4, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dear, patents speak for themselves! We have 4% of world population and 70% of recent medical patents! Anyway you look at the USA creates the medical care on this planet, and we do a damn good job!!
> ...



1) why read a link from a fool without the IQ to know that China eliminated half the world's poverty with Republican capitalism!!

2)Medical Devices
shows that with 4% of world population 60% of world medical patents originate in the USA and almost 100% come from those educated in the Republican capitalist USA!!!!!   

Now certainly you can see why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.





	  	Pre 1998	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	 All Years
Total, U.S. And Foreign Origin	 	55679	9544	10480	11436	11873	11555	10911	9580	8707	7897	6100	3362	1823	909	68	159924
-- Subtotal -- U.S. Origin	 	40843	6845	7368	7795	7924	7812	7673	6641	6122	5669	4351	2431	1381	718	50	113623
-- Subtotal -- Foreign Origin	 	14836	2699	3112	3641	3949	3743	3238	2939	2585	2228	1749	931	442	191	18	46301


----------

