# Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 7, 2012)

Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???

Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%

Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%

It would save every American about $5000 a year.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



This sounds like a wonderful idea Edward.  I would love to see healthcare providers paying us to go see them for all of our medical needs.  With costs decreasing by over 1000%, doctors and hospitals would be paying us to go to see them.  Wouldn't that just be great?  I'm really not sure how it would work though; maybe you can explain it to a simple minded pinhead like me?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 8, 2012)

This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
How does that work again?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?



we have long had anti-trust laws. Sorry!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



too stupid!!! I was speaking figuratively, not literally.

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal will be slow, to put it politely!!


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 8, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



It's rather simple actually to anyone with even a meager understanding of economics and how a market works.  As for the OPs numbers, I don't know where he is getting his $5000 figure from so whether or not that is accurate, who knows.  The 1000%, of course, is hyperbole, his point being it would result in a major decrease in costs, but you already knew that.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 8, 2012)

medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???



Yeah. It would make private interests richer while sticking the U.S. taxpayer with the burden of uninsured emergency room visits.



> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%


Really? Disease has profit motive? Is that in any medical textbooks?



> Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%
> 
> It would save every American about $5000 a year.


LOL! -1000%, huh?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



But liberals don't know that at all. How can they if they simply lack the IQ to understand capitalism. When you can understand capitalism it seems simple, like the theory of relativity if you can understand it, but when you  lack the IQ it is impossibly complex.

The liberal then tries to fake it by pretending what he cant understand is irrelevant. Then he is free to propose something simple like a magical liberal soviet government program. Make sense?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.



a perfect example of the liberal IQ. 

Everyone wants more pay and profits of course but competition makes you accept lower and lower pay and profits until you are working at cost or below, in a capitalist system. 

This is Econ 101 class one day one but a liberal lacks the IQ to understand it.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



you mean that Mittens is into a _magical liberal soviet government program_ also. Since the AHA was based on Romneycare in Mass.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Yeah. It[capitalism] would make private interests richer while sticking the U.S. taxpayer with the burden of uninsured emergency room visits.




too stupid but perfectly liberal. How could they get richer if they were forced to compete with each other. Providers get rich now because Democrats made competition illegal.

Its so far over a liberal's head!!


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.
> ...



How will there be more medical workers when there is a chronic shortage now?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



too stupid!! if he was into it he would not promise to end it the second he enters office!!!


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. It[capitalism] would make private interests richer while sticking the U.S. taxpayer with the burden of uninsured emergency room visits.
> ...



So you are trying to tell us that before Obama the providers were working for peanutz?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



who said there  would be???????????????????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



IF I said or implied that I'll pay you 10,000. Bet??


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

cant you just see it.


Price shopping hospitals for a hour and a half while your child bleeds to death


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> cant you just see it.
> 
> 
> Price shopping hospitals for a hour and a half while your child bleeds to death




too stupid!!! when prices are published you know long before you buy that a Rolls Royce is more expensive than a Chevy, and insurance companies know long before that!!

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## Black_Label (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???



Yes, it's quite simple


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > cant you just see it.
> ...



Dear idiot,

emergency services is what makes medical care soooo expensive


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



if I disagreed I'll pay you 10,000. Bet or run away with your strawman between your legs


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

your plan would leave millions without care.

your the fucking idiot here


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 8, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Yep one has to wonder about Edwards IQ


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> your plan would leave millions without care.
> 
> your the fucking idiot here



dear the second Red China switched to capitalism everyone could afford ten times more!!! What planet have you been on?????

Is it possible that anyone could be so stupid as to not know that???


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> your plan would leave millions without care.
> 
> your the fucking idiot here



His kind doesn't give a shit.

The only thing that matters is their precious money.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

special ed


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 8, 2012)

He can't even figure money/percentages.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...





Oh man, you are priceless, for real.

I cant wait to show this to my Rolex wearing, Porsche driving health insurance company exec friends of mine, we really love it when you idiot morons defend our stealing from you


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> special ed



I like that, I will bet it will stick.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > your plan would leave millions without care.
> ...



yes, a liberal is a morality bigot, he cares more and so wants Red China to go back to socialist en masse starvation. Is 60 million dead enough to please such a caring bigot as yourself??


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



oh man, really, please learn when to 

stay down


----------



## Mr Natural (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



And what the fuck does Red China have to do with paying for healthcare services?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> And what the fuck does Red China have to do with paying for healthcare services?



too stupid but perfectly liberal!!

China just switched to capitalism and now everyone can pay for everything while Barry wants to switch to socialism under which  60 million slowly starved to death because no one could pay for anything!!

Still over the liberal's head?????

See why we are positive a liberal will be like a child??


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > And what the fuck does Red China have to do with paying for healthcare services?
> ...



my exec buddies just bought a new porsche while you were typing that


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

Poor special Ed.


he ran away


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Poor special Ed.
> 
> 
> he ran away



Health *insurance *is a crime everywhere but in America


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

Yeah its funny how they think the US cant do what other countries do quite well.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Yeah its funny how they think the US cant do what other countries do quite well.



what do they do well????????????????


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah its funny how they think the US cant do what other countries do quite well.
> ...



Finally, thanks for admitting you have no idea about anything that is going on anywhere

REad up on how the rest of the civilized world does health care, and how selling insurance for primary care is a crime...

then you need to watch "Sicko" 

then you need to talk to people in the health insurance industry who are willing to admit to you what is actually going on

then come back here


----------



## Oddball (Aug 8, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Either that or you could STFU and move to Cuba, where they allegedly have the greatest health care in the world....Well, that is except if the Castros need some, then they go elsewhere.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 8, 2012)

Oddball said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



the irony is that other countries do get some decent results at half the cost but this is because they are poorer, get subsidized by us  and because they have somewhat organized socialist systems while our socialist system is a huge spaghetti mess of conflicting overlapping redundant and competing bureaucracies buried under mountains of regulations.

The assumption has to be that if we moved to a capitalist system our costs would be half or less than Europe's socialist costs.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

Jesus, thanks kids, thanks for playing

I have to go see my Rolex dealer, time to spend more of your money


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 8, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Poor special Ed.
> ...



Astounding how the hard of thinking can be made to believe what is a debilitation is actually a virtue....

Ban individual healthcare insurance if you dictate that every one must lock-step into government healthcare....where bureaucrats decide what is good for you.

Socialist policies favor increased central planning of the economy by politicians and by bureaucrats, instead of allowing entrepreneurs, businesses, and customers to make decisions in a free market.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 8, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Sicko????

Now, who are you going to believe if not Michael Moore? Moore states that Cuba has a better healthcare system (they live longer). "All the independent health organizations in the world, and even our own CIA, believes that the Cubans have a pretty good health system. And they do, in fact, live longer than we do," he said. 

But when "20/20" contacted the CIA, officials said, "We don't say that Cuba has a pretty good system or that Cubans live longer than Americans." 

In fact, the CIA's World Fact Book says Americans live nearly a year longer. Although a U.N. report supports Moore's position, that data comes straight from the Cuban government. 
Page 2: Healthy in Cuba, Sick in America? - ABC News


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 8, 2012)

stop insisting on being stupid, please

stop lying, please


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



And you think what you post passes for political discussion because???

Seems like another of your baseless rants....


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 8, 2012)

I stopped after " does a liberal have the iq to understand...".   Regardless of the rest of the question, the answer is an obvious and resounding no.


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> I stopped after " does a liberal have the iq to understand...".   Regardless of the rest of the question, the answer is an obvious and resounding no.



Only to a blithering idiot like you and the o/p,... You're pretty much fungible.

Google the word. I'll try to stay monosyllabic for you next time.

Oops... Better google that one, too.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 8, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> stop insisting on being stupid, please
> 
> stop lying, please




Were you speaking into a mirror?


Otherwise, your post makes no sense....


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 8, 2012)

jillian said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > I stopped after " does a liberal have the iq to understand...".   Regardless of the rest of the question, the answer is an obvious and resounding no.
> ...



Doesnt an OWS parasite like you have a cop car to shit on, or a business to disrupt?


----------



## jillian (Aug 8, 2012)

Pho_King said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pho_King said:
> ...



i'm pretty sure i earn more than you and pay more in taxes. so feel free to kiss my blue state butt... leech.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 8, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...





Is this the Romney Health Care plan?  

Go for it!


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2012)

Somebody used IQ and liberal in the same sentence.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 8, 2012)

poor special ed fails again


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 8, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> poor special ed fails again



Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy!


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



So we'll all pay cash and the price of everything will go down.  Interesting; I'd like to see how much cheaper a liver transplant or stem cell transplant would be and who would be able to afford it.  Currently a liver transplant runs around $350,000 and a stem cell transplant can run upwards of $750,000.  Even if the price was cut in half, only the super wealthy would be able to afford it.  

The problem with people like you is you see everything as black and white.  You think that your idea is the perfect answer for everything, until you find out it is not.  Let me tell you something, if I would have had to pay cash for all my families medical expenses over the years, there is no way i would have been able to pay much of it.  Granted, I have benefited greatly from having insurance.  It has done what it was supposed to when I needed it.  

Here is a semi-list of my families major medical expenses over the years.  My wife had kidney stones that put her in the hospital for a week at a cost of around $20,000.  This was in the early 90's.  Then my first born was born early and had to stay in NICU for two weeks at the cost of around $85,000.  Then my second son was born extremely early and only weighed three pounds.  He was in NICU for 47 days and the bill topped $300,000.  This was also in the 90's.  Then my wife was diagnosed with AML (Acute Myloid Leukemia).  She went through Chemo, full body radiation and a stem cell transplant, and eventually lost her battle and died.  The bill for her ten month battle was over $1.3 million.  Last of all, I was diagnosed with Hemochromatosis and have cirrhosis of the liver because of it.  The cost for my treatment over the first two years was actually quite cheap as it only cost around $30,000.  

Now had the cost been reduced some because everyone was paying for it out of pocket, there is still no way in hell I could have ever paid for it.  There is a reason that we have insurance.  The only option outside of insurance is a one payer system that is paid for by everyone through taxes.  It just amazes me that cons like you believe you are so smart and are incapable of understanding even the simplest of things.


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 9, 2012)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Here is my problem.  There is this idea among many cons that we can just pay cash for our healthcare and costs will come down.  While I do agree with this, we are realistically only talking about certain things within healthcare that are not that expensive to begin with.  As soon as you get to major health issues, the costs become more than most could ever pay for out of pocket.  My family has had medical bills over the years in excess of $1.7 million.  My wife had the bulk of that when she was being treated for leukemia.  But outside of that issue, both my sons were born premature.  One had medical bills of around $85,000 and the other was over $300,000.  My wife at kidney stones that required treatment in hospital at a cost of around $20,000.  And then there is me who needed treatment over a two year period that cost over $30,000, and I still face an outside possibility of needing a liver transplant at some time down the road, but hopefully not.  I"m doing everything I can to keep the one I have even though it is damaged.  My point is that any of these things would bankrupt most people if they had to pay out of pocket, and paying out of pocket would not drop the cost that much.

I don't know for certain what the answer is, but this is something to think about.  In a normal business market, if a company develops a product or service, the more people buy that product or service, the cheaper it gets to produce and the cost drops.  However in healthcare it seems to be the exact opposite, when more people use a service the cost just goes up and up and up.  Somewhere something doesn't make sense.  A lot of it has to do with there not being any real competition, but again creating a competitive atmosphere in healthcare isn't necessarily in the best interest of patients, because patients have varying needs in varying parts of the country.  People in rural areas need healthcare just as much as those living in urban areas, but the numbers aren't there to support many hospitals or doctors in those areas.  The whole thing is just so much more complex than saying "well if we do it the Republican way and make everyone pay for it all out of pocket, then it will get a lot cheaper".


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 9, 2012)

Is 'capitalist health care' an oxymoron?

Capitalist police enforcement?

Capitalist national defense?


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 9, 2012)

If people want their X-Rays read by the lowest bidder, than go for it.  Even more ironic is that most of these people are the same people who want massive tort reform.  

Hell, I'll read them for you for three fiddy a pop.  

The money will roll right in.

Capitalism, baby.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 9, 2012)

Well now that we have all been educated in Special Ed class.....


----------



## Pho_King (Aug 9, 2012)

jillian said:


> Pho_King said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



Of course you are sure of that, sugartits.  You are woman.  Hear you roar.  Especially when you need a man to change your tire.   

I don't care what you earn.  You are not as rotten a parasite as most lefties.  But you have the same mentality.  Now, go find that cop car to defecate on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> There is a reason that we have insurance.  .



1) capitalism cuts costs about 90% judging from what people could afford in the USSR and Red China versus the USA

2) no capitalist is or would be against private insurance

Sorry to hear about all your health problems.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 9, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> we are realistically only talking about certain things within healthcare that are not that expensive to begin with.



1) Space X can do space flight for a tiny fraction of what it costs government.

2) The second China switched to capitalism everyone could afford everything, before that everyone was slowly starving to death.

A liberal will simply lack the IQ to understand some of the easiest concepts.


----------



## yankhadenuf (Aug 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> *Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???*




Yes, that is why liberals would never fall for such a scam. Remember Bush attempt to privatize Social Security before the Crash of Sept. 2008? Good thing liberals had smarts to halt that con too (pun intended).


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



Thank you thank you thank you thank you!

My Rolex AD thanks you, my Hollywood Travel Agent thanks you, my Real Estate Agent thanks you...

oh god


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 17, 2012)

Should we start a thread, "Do 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have the I.Q. to climb out of the past and originate something new that works?"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Should we start a thread, "Do 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have the I.Q. to climb out of the past and originate something new that works?"





your question is perfect testimony to your pure liberal ignorance. There are no new ideas under the sun. Why not repeat that 100 times until you learn it? Have your mother quiz you every morning at breakfast. 

You see, there is freedom and there is government. That is the story of mankind. Republicans since Jefferson have suppported freedom while Democrats have treasonously supported government.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

yankhadenuf said:


> Remember Bush attempt to privatize Social Security before the Crash of Sept. 2008? Good thing liberals had smarts to halt that con too (pun intended).



yes, far far better to have Social Security stay with government where 100% of the funds were stolen!!!

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


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Should we start a thread, "Do 'liberals' and 'conservatives' have the I.Q. to climb out of the past and originate something new that works?"
> ...




One shows she/he doesn't.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> One shows she/he doesn't.



what????????????????????

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow????


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

Look out! There may be a liberal under the bed!


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > One shows she/he doesn't.
> ...



I may be slow, but I'm not a 'liberal'.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > One shows she/he doesn't.
> ...



English a challenge?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Look out! There may be a liberal under the bed!



or they may be spying for Stalin again!!! Do you know why they spied for Stalin and not Hitler?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



pure liberal ignorance is a problem for the world


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



I know dear, you're proudly independent of the IQ needed to decide what you are


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Look out! There may be a liberal under the bed!
> ...



Hitler died too soon?

I also do not have antlers.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

People sometimes find it difficult to believe in parallel universes, but it can be easily demonstrated. There is the dichotomous, dualistic one so many live in.
Then there is at least one other where freer minds live.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> People sometimes find it difficult to believe in parallel universes, but it can be easily demonstrated. There is the dichotomous, dualistic one so many live in.
> Then there is at least one other where freer minds live.


 
too stupid as usual!! You must find the voting booth a horrible place since it very accurately reduces human history to the question of freedom versus government.

do you really lack the IQ to know this??


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 20, 2012)

Hey, you're falling behind. Who's slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 20, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



yes, but do you know why the liberals  spied for Stalin and not Hitler


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 21, 2012)

Stalin paid better?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Aug 21, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> Stalin paid better?



a typical liberal trying to change the subject because he lacks the IQ to  address the subject


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 4, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?



dear, anti-trust laws make monopoly illegal


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 7, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Do you object to letting capitalism cut the cost of health care in half?


----------



## regent (Oct 7, 2012)

I think I see Ed's point here. Liver transplants are expensive, right? Well suppose no one bought the livers? If no one bought the livers they would go down in price until they were cheaper than in a super market. Need a liver, doctors would put them in almost free, while you wait, just to get rid of them. That's capitalism at work. I hope you all have the IQ's to understand that, and if not you're slow, very slow.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 8, 2012)

regent said:


> Well suppose no one bought the livers?



too stupid and perfectly liberal!!!

1) if you need a transplant you have no choice but to buy much like if you need food you have no choice but to buy 

2) in a capitalist system providers would be locked in life and death competition to offer liver transplants for the least possible price.


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

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


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 16, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.



competition forces pay to the lowest possible level. thats why they cant charge $5000 for a loaf of bread.

Democrats made competition illegal in health care. Now you know why people get paid so much in health care!


----------



## regent (Oct 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.
> ...



Pay, Shmay, as Romney said, if you get sick you go to the hospital emergency. 
And they said Romney wasn't presidential.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 17, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Since the pubpots refuse to allow price competition between drug companies, I kinda doubt they'd go for any other measure that would lower costs AND lower profits to the drug pushers and Big Insurance. 

They're already gnashing their teeth because the poor widdow insurance companies are being forced by the Affordable Care Act to actually spend 80% of every dollar on patient care. And worse, if they keep on stuffing our money in their pockets, they have to send us a refund. 

Also, I think Edward has forgotten that the R candidate, one Willard the Rat, said that his health care "plan" consists of you, me and the rest of the Great Unwashed, sitting in the ER waiting room while our tax money is buying Affordable Care for our congress crooks. What a guy, huh?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Oct 17, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> Since the pubpots refuse to allow price competition ?



what? how stupid can you be?????????? Conservative/ liberatarian/Republicans are for capitalism in health care and all industries! Liberals are openly for socialism which is the opposite of capitalism!!

It is the lack of capitalism( for example,competition made illegal between insurance companies)  that makes our system double the cost of Europe and Canada.

Now even you know the basics!!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 8, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Its the Rebublican capitalist libertarian health care plan against which few dare to debate.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



In that case, would you mind listing "figurative" diseases?

As opposed to "literal", I mean. 

Thanks, ever so much.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Wait wait, don't tell me ...

You do stand up at the nursing home on Friday night, right?


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?



Unfortunately for your charming theory, the facts are someone different.  Standard oil dropped their prices every year.  So did most of the railroads in the country.  Most of the complaints were from competing businesses who charged that Standard Oil was charging prices that were to low.

It appears the market worked just as the OP said it does.


----------



## bripat9643 (Dec 9, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.



Really?  Then what about the cost of laser eye surgery?  That's one of the areas in medicine that is truly a free market.  insurance doesn't pay for it.  It's purely elective.  And the cost has gone down from $5000 to less than $500.

It seems real world examples don't support your claim.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



Sorry I stopped believeing in Santa Claus long ago.


----------



## rdean (Dec 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



Wow, for sure one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read at this site.  Truly "stupid".

This is why Republicans fantasies never work out.  They "imagine" how things work, but those imaginings are, for lack of a better word, "stupid".  Does this really have to be "explained"?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



1000%, really?

LOL!


----------



## George Costanza (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



Ah, yes - the free market.  How has that been workin' for ya so far when it comes to health care?

I believe that the free market works fine until it comes to necessities and then the free market concept begins to be supplanted by another and more powerful driving force - greed.  Health care is, realistically, a necessity.  Ah, but there is more than one health care provider, I hear you cry.  They will compete against each other for business and offer health care at lower rates as an incentive to get business.  I have two words for that one: price fixing.


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2012)

George Costanza said:


> I believe that the free market works fine until it comes to necessities ...



And which are those?


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



and what about insurance industry profit?  ANd wouldn't republican health care encourage insurance companies to dump folks with illnesses in order to further maximize their profits?

just curious.

and how big of an IQ do you need to understand that it is impossible to decrease costs by 1000%?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> and what about insurance industry profit?



in a capitalist system where competition is allowed competition forces profits to $0 so it is not an issue. Econ 101!!






expatriate said:


> ANd wouldn't republican health care encourage insurance companies to dump folks with illnesses in order to further maximize their profits?
> just curious.



no they would  be the best customers because they need the most product. It would be like someone needed a Rolls Royce. THe more products someone needs the more capitalists like him!!




expatriate said:


> and how big of an IQ do you need to understand that it is impossible to decrease costs by 1000%?



dear, was not speaking literally!! One needs a certain IQ to figure that out!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> and what about insurance industry profit?





> in a capitalist system where competition is allowed competition forces profits to $0 so it is not an issue. Econ 101!!



When insurance companies are an unnecessary middle man in the healthcare delivery system, their mere existence creates an additional layer of cost.




expatriate said:


> And wouldn't republican health care encourage insurance companies to dump folks with illnesses in order to further maximize their profits?
> just curious.





> no they would  be the best customers because they need the most product. It would be like someone needed a Rolls Royce. THe more products someone needs the more capitalists like him!!



Are you serious?  Do you know how insurance companies work? Do you understand the concept of pooled risk?  Are you suggesting that insurance companies would find the sickest people to be their best customers?  Why?  Because they inordinately consumed more and more of their margin that they would normally extract from the risk pool?  I think you didn't finish Econ 101 and should probably log off the internet and get back to studying. Finals are coming up soon.



expatriate said:


> and how big of an IQ do you need to understand that it is impossible to decrease costs by 1000%?





> dear, was not speaking literally!! One needs a certain IQ to figure that out!



Oh... so you expect to pull some ridiculous rhetorical number out of your butt and think that anyone is going to take you seriously?  If you've got some data that would indicate the percentage of cost savings - IF ANY - that any of your ideas might generate, why not present them and the analysis behind them so we can discuss them?  (although I think we both know the answer to THAT one!)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> When insurance companies are an unnecessary middle man in the healthcare delivery system, their mere existence creates an additional layer of cost.



too stupid!! all industries have many layers of middle men from raw material to store shelf. Competition drives profit to $0. As a liberal you lack the IQ to understand capitalism which explains why you tried to change the subject!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Are you suggesting that insurance companies would find the sickest people to be their best customers?  Why?



I did tell you why but you lacked the IQ to understand so you changed the subject rather than face your ignorance. A very sick person is like a Rolls Royce buyer. They need the most product so the insurance companies will seek them out because they will pay the highest prices for the best products!!

Why not get your Mom to explain the basics of capitalism to you??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> If you've got some data that would indicate the percentage of cost savings - IF ANY - that any of your ideas might generate, why not present them and the analysis behind them so we can discuss them?




dear, are you crazy??? Look at Communist China, when they were liberal communist no one could afford anything and millions were starving to death, now they have capitalism and everything is virtually free and available and everyone is getting rich!!


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that insurance companies would find the sickest people to be their best customers?  Why?
> ...



What??? 

I asked my mom. She said you're not making any fucking sense.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

dblack said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Dear, try to put into words why it doesn't make sense to you?

Do you understand that if a man wants a huge house or great car or great health care, business will happily fill that need???


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > If you've got some data that would indicate the percentage of cost savings - IF ANY - that any of your ideas might generate, why not present them and the analysis behind them so we can discuss them?
> ...



so... you got nothing but smoke? got it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



dear, China is a real country!! Have you heard of it??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting that insurance companies would find the sickest people to be their best customers?  Why?
> ...



clearly, you have zero idea what the nature of the "product" is that insurance companies sell.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



again... show some data where your ideas will save every american $5000 a year (your number... or was that total bullshit like the 1000% cost savings was?)  You got a lot of rhetoric that sheds much heat, but not much light.  I'll wait.


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



Yes, I do. Do you understand that insurance companies don't make money from sick customers? They make money from people who don't actually use their insurance. Every insurance companies has a strong incentive to minimize the sickest of people from their pool and maximize the number of paying customers who are least likely to need health care.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

dblack said:


> Yes, I do. Do you understand that insurance companies don't make money from sick customers?



dear, if no one got sick there would be no insurance companies!!!! Can't you ask your Mom about these basics?????


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do. Do you understand that insurance companies don't make money from sick customers?
> ...



It's always such a dilemma talking to you. Nominally, you're often on my 'side'. But damn, get some brains. Or maybe just don't type as much. Something...


----------



## jillian (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do. Do you understand that insurance companies don't make money from sick customers?
> ...



what does that even mean?

he's right...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

dblack said:


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



do you think insurance companies could make money if no one ever got sick?? How??

Remember the typical human beings who followed HItler Stalin and Mao thought they were smart too. So did our liberals when they spied for Stalin.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I do. Do you understand that insurance companies don't make money from sick customers?
> ...



And if everyone got sick, the insurance companies would go bankrupt... and if insurance companies only had sick clients, everyone would quickly figure out that self insuring made more sense.  you're kind of an idiot...  but part of me thinks you're just goofin'


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

jillian said:


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



he said insurance companies cant make money from sick people apparently without knowing that without sick people insurance companies would not make a penny!!

Talking to liberals is exactly like talking to children!!


----------



## dblack (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Slow down. Take a breath and think. Insurance companies make money from healthy people who are afraid they might get sick and not be able to pay for it. They make money when customers don't, in fact, get sick. They lose money when they do.

Insurance companies have exactly no reason to 'sell' insurance to a person who is already sick - unless of course they exclude whatever sickness they currently have from the coverage. 

The fact is, insurance is not an answer for someone who is already sick. It's like you're simply disagreeing with this statement because a liberal posted it. But that's silly. Sometimes even liberals say something that is true and correct. Though it's usually an accident.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

dblack said:


> The fact is, insurance is not an answer for someone who is already sick.



IF I said it was I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your strawman between your legs!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 10, 2012)

dblack said:


> Insurance companies have exactly no reason to 'sell' insurance to a person who is already sick - unless of course they exclude whatever sickness they currently have from the coverage.




too stupid. you created a strawman and then beat it up badly didn't you????

A liberal will do that when he lacks the IQ to know what the subject is or when he can't respond intelligently to the subject!!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Insurance companies have exactly no reason to 'sell' insurance to a person who is already sick - unless of course they exclude whatever sickness they currently have from the coverage.
> ...



again...your idea that insurance companies want to sell to sick people is absolutely ridiculous.  They WANT to sell insurance policies where really healthy people pay premiums forever and NEVER get sick.  They do NOT want to sell insurance policies to chronically sick people because the cost of the care they cover by their insurance will far outweigh the money they get in premiums.  ANd if they jack their premiums up to an exorbitant, profitable level, the sick people will quickly realize that they can self-insure for the same amount of money and cut out the middle man.

Did you ever take Econ 101 or are you really a pimply faced teenager posting away from the cave down in your mommy's basement?


----------



## expatriate (Dec 11, 2012)

I wonder if Edward also believes that insurance companies really want to seek out and sell car insurance to folks who get into lots of car accidents?


----------



## dblack (Dec 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I wonder if Edward also believes that insurance companies really want to seek out and sell car insurance to folks who get into lots of car accidents?



Their best customers!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> again...your idea that insurance companies want to sell to sick people is absolutely ridiculous.



In business we want to sell to anyone as long as liberals don't make it illegal for us to recover our costs and make a profit. If someone is 50 he is a lot sicker than someone who is 20 but we could care less as long as the liberal will allow capitalism to occur!!

Isn't thinking fun??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 11, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > again...your idea that insurance companies want to sell to sick people is absolutely ridiculous.
> ...



again... if you sell to the sickest people in society, the insurance premium will need to be so high that any person who can think will realize that self insuring is more cost effective.  Having spent twenty years married to a State Farm Insurance agent, I can tell you that the best customers they have are NOT the ones who have accidents, but the ones who don't.  WHich is why they spend so much time with "good driver discounts" trying to attract those who never have accidents.

YOu really know a very little bit about this subject area and it shows.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 11, 2012)

expatriate said:


> again... if you sell to the sickest people in society, the insurance premium will need to be so high that any person who can think will realize that self insuring is more cost effective.



so?? that's fine; who would object to someone not wanting to buy something in a  free society????????????


----------



## expatriate (Dec 11, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > again... if you sell to the sickest people in society, the insurance premium will need to be so high that any person who can think will realize that self insuring is more cost effective.
> ...



no one.  again.... how do insurance companies make more money off sick people than they do  off healthy ones?  How do insurance companies make more money off bad drivers than then do off good ones?

your understanding of risk pool economics is woefully inadequate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



dear, everyone gets sicker as they age but this does not mean insurance companies divide people into healthy and unhealthy and refuse to insure less healthy people. Too subtle for you??


As everyone gets richer they require a better or more expensive car, for example, but this does not mean car companies refuse to sell to them. Got it now??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



you avoid the basic issue of risk pool economics.  Insurance companies, as a matter of policy, seek to insure those who are healthy, and to cull from their rolls, those who are less healthy, just as they seek to reward safe drivers and fail to renew policies for those chronically get in lots of accidents.  THAT is how insurance companies make profits.  They do not make money by insuring really sick people or really bad drivers.  fact.

If a person with pre-existing health issues looks to buy insurance on the open market, he or she will quickly find that self insurance is the only option.  Similarly, habitually poor drivers will find that normal, comprehensive policies are beyond their ability to pay or are simply not worth the cost.

and, in fact, insurance companies most definitely DO segregate people based upon their health history and driving history and DO - ALL THE FUCKING TIME - refuse to sell them insurance based upon those criteria.

Really.  Do you even have the faintest idea about how insurance companies stay profitable???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



and your point is????


----------



## expatriate (Dec 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



quite simply, that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.  to suggest that insurance companies would PREFER to insure sick people, or bad drivers, is just plain stupid.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> to suggest that insurance companies would PREFER to insure sick people, or bad drivers, is just plain stupid.



they will sell a Rolls Royce to a rich man or an insurance policy to a sick man as long as the liberal governemnt does not prevent them from recovering their costs and making a profit!!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > to suggest that insurance companies would PREFER to insure sick people, or bad drivers, is just plain stupid.
> ...



and a rich man can possibly afford a rolls royce, but a sick man could never afford an insurance policy if it were more cost effective for HIM to self insure, and the insurance company would NEVER sell him a policy because they could never make a profit.  Again... you seem absolutely and utterly ignorant of how insurance companies actually MAKE profits... and the way they do is to sell health insurance policies to people who never get sick, but feel the need to be insured because they MIGHT get sick someday, and to sell car insurance policies to really safe drivers who never get in accidents but want to be covered in case they get hit by someone who isn't insured.  MY ex-wife made millions of dollars as a State Farm agent applying those very principles.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 12, 2012)

expatriate said:


> and a rich man can possibly afford a rolls royce, but a sick man could never afford an insurance policy if it were more cost effective for HIM to self insure,



so, its free country or ought to be so if someone elects to self-insure that 100% fine!!




expatriate said:


> and the insurance company would NEVER sell him a policy because they could never make a profit.



dear you make a profit by charging more than the anticipated cost. Is it really over your head??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > and a rich man can possibly afford a rolls royce, but a sick man could never afford an insurance policy if it were more cost effective for HIM to self insure,
> ...



you are wrong.  Insurance companies make profits by spreading the risk among the risk pool and by, systematically, removing high risk clients, whenever renewal time occurs.  The more they minimize the number of clients who actually HAVE medical issues while simultaneously maximizing the number of clients who DON'T, the more their profit.   Just like for auto insurance... the better GOOD drivers they can garner as clients, the more their profits.  THey don't want bad drivers on their car insurance rolls any more than they want sick ones on their health insurance rolls.

For you to suggest that sick clients are their BEST customers shows a level of astounding ignorance when it comes to how the insurance industry works.  

Really... you should pick some other topic... arab -israeli conflict, maybe... gay marriage, maybe... a woman's right to chose, maybe.... ANYTHING but this topic because you are obviously unaware of how absolutely moronic you paint yourself to be.  Trust me... when it comes to risk pool economics and the profitability of insurance companies, all you know could fit in a coffee cup and there would still be room for a hot cup of coffee. 

And quit calling me "dear" you queer twit.


----------



## Polk (Dec 12, 2012)

there4eyeM said:


> This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?



And even worse in the case of health care, because people are not really that sensitive to price when the alternative is dying.


----------



## rdean (Dec 12, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



you put the stupid in dumb


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2012)

rdean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...




Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???

Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%

Providers would be competing on price and quality to survive. This would decrease costs another 1000%

It would save every American about $5000 a year.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 13, 2012)

repeating the same post is spam.

repeating the same ignorant post is boring spam.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 13, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Yeah, just what you want, a quadruple bypass done by the low bidder.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> [
> 
> Yeah, just what you want, a quadruple bypass done by the low bidder.



too stupid!! under capitalism you always want the low bidder and the highest quality.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 13, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...




Yeah, you might want it but almost never get it.

Surely a person with your advanced IQ would understand that concept.

Or are you just  fucking dunce?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2012)

too stupid!! under capitalism you always want the low bidder and the highest quality.



Mr Clean said:


> Yeah, you might want it but almost never get it.



if someone said you do always get it I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away again with your liberal strawman  between your legs.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 13, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> too stupid!! under capitalism you always want the low bidder and the highest quality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



offered price and delivered quality are two separate curves.  A veterinarian could offer to do your bypass for very little money.  The absolute best heart surgeon in the world would offer you a price that was WAY beyond that.  The quality would be different, but you hardly ever find the lowest bid and the highest quality together from the same source.

and I notice you avoided answering my post 139.  The smartest thing you've done on this thread has been a act of omission.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 13, 2012)

expatriate said:


> [ The quality would be different, but you hardly ever find the lowest bid and the highest quality together from the same source.



so??? are you a communist?? do you want a government minder approving every transaction to see if the price and quality are ok with you or some Nazi in Washington????




expatriate said:


> and I notice you avoided answering my post 139.  The smartest thing you've done on this thread has been a act of omission.



why be so afraid to state your question here for all to see???????


----------



## expatriate (Dec 13, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > [ The quality would be different, but you hardly ever find the lowest bid and the highest quality together from the same source.
> ...



I am not a communist at all.  I find it ridiculous to suggest that the market forces of capitalism, in and of themselves, will deliver the very best quality surgery at the very lowest cost.

and actually, post #139 is here for all to see... it wasn't some private message to only you that you chose to ignore.

Your belief that the very sickest patients are the very best clients for insurance companies exhibits such a total vacuum of knowledge about what the very nature of insurance actually is, I remain inclined to think that this is all some troll act of yours and that you cannot actually be serious.


----------



## Polk (Dec 14, 2012)

Is someone put a gun to your head, how much would be willing to pay to stop them from pulling the trigger?


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 14, 2012)

Polk said:


> Is someone put a gun to your head, how much would be willing to pay to stop them from pulling the trigger?



Under republican capitalism you'll always want the gunman to not pull the trigger for the lowest possible price.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 14, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I am not a communist at all.  I find it ridiculous to suggest that the market forces of capitalism, in and of themselves, will deliver the very best quality surgery at the very lowest cost.



too stupid we are the richest country in human history because we have the most capitalism. The higher your price and the lower your quality the less you make, the less satisfaction and respect you get. Capitalism is beauty. Liberalism is death!





expatriate said:


> Your belief that the very sickest patients are the very best clients for insurance companies exhibits such a total vacuum of knowledge about what the very nature of insurance actually is, I remain inclined to think that this is all some troll act of yours and that you cannot actually be serious.




who does GM like more? Someone who needs a small cheap car or someone with a need for a huge expensive car??? Isn't thinking fun??
IF as a liberal you lack the IQ to be here why are you here??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 14, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a communist at all.  I find it ridiculous to suggest that the market forces of capitalism, in and of themselves, will deliver the very best quality surgery at the very lowest cost.
> ...



So I take it you would be perfectly happy to allow the heart surgeon that offered the lowest bid do your triple bypass operation?  what an idiot.





expatriate said:


> Your belief that the very sickest patients are the very best clients for insurance companies exhibits such a total vacuum of knowledge about what the very nature of insurance actually is, I remain inclined to think that this is all some troll act of yours and that you cannot actually be serious.






EdwardBaiamonte said:


> who does GM like more? Someone who needs a small cheap car or someone with a need for a huge expensive car??? Isn't thinking fun??
> IF as a liberal you lack the IQ to be here why are you here??



As I said, I have a great deal of personal knowledge about the insurance industry, and the folks that they love the most are those that pay their premiums on time and NEVER file a claim.  Have you ever thought about the nature of the insurance business and how it is that they actually make their money?  It is by spreading the risk of claims among a large risk pool. And they HOPE that the VAST majority of those in the pool NEVER file a claim. And those that do file a claim are, especially in the realm of health insurance, usually denied renewal when their policy expires.  Thinking IS fun.  Critically thinking is not only fun, it is essential to developing anything beyond a slogan oriented understanding of the world... something you have clearly not grasped to date.

I would bet you twenty grand right now that my IQ beats yours by at least 15 points.  You are an idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> So I take it you would be perfectly happy to allow the heart surgeon that offered the lowest bid do your triple bypass operation?  what an idiot.



if you take it based on anything I said I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?? or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs yet again.

In fact, here's *your* understand of what I said 3 lines above which you instantly forgot with your prodigous liberal mind: "I find it ridiculous to suggest that the market forces of capitalism, in and of themselves, will deliver the very best quality surgery at the very lowest cost," What does that tell you about your liberal intelligence??
!!





expatriate said:


> As I said, I have a great deal of personal knowledge about the insurance industry, .



dear, you're a liberal so how much could you understand???

Let me try an even more simple example, suitable for a slow liberal mind. You can buy life insurance at age 20 or at age 80-right? It doesn't matter to an insurance company what your age is or what your life expectancy is as long it is free to cover its costs, just like any other Republican capitalist business!! Got it now??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 15, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > So I take it you would be perfectly happy to allow the heart surgeon that offered the lowest bid do your triple bypass operation?  what an idiot.
> ...



I notice you backpedalled away from the IQ bet.  wise move, trust me.

As I said... your understanding of insurance could fit in a coffee cup and there'd still be room for a cup of coffee. Insurance companies will write policies for anyone from whom they can reasonably expect to make a profit.  SICK people are NOT their best customers in that they cannot possibly make a profit from them.  ANd you are a total idiot to suggest otherwise.

And what my statement about the absurdity of your ideas about the cost and quality of medical treatment says this about my liberal intelligence:  it exists, in abundance, compared to yours.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 15, 2012)

expatriate said:


> As I said... your understanding of insurance could fit in a coffee cup



is a life insurance company happy to sell an 80 year old insurance?????????????????????? Yes or No!!!!!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 15, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > As I said... your understanding of insurance could fit in a coffee cup
> ...




in a word, NO.  why would they be?  what profit is there in that sort of a policy?


----------



## Middleoftheroad (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...




OMG, this is so stupid that it is going to have to go in my sig.  So hmm lets look at your "math".  Lets say I pay 5,000 a year towards health insurance, the cost decreases by 1000%, I guess that means the cost went down 50,000, so now they are paying me 45,000 a year to have insurance.  Then the cost goes down another 1000%, so now they are paying me 95,000 a year.  Couple that with my wife's health insurance and we are making 190,000 a year and have free health insurance!

We are retiring!  Also, so is about half of America.

I think Ed doesn't understand what math is or how it works.  Someone needs to tell him that you cannot just throw out numbers.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 16, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...




And that's why we call him Special Ed.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 16, 2012)

He really is trollishly nonsensical at times... like he really KNOWS how completely off-kilter his "theories" are, yet he continues to present them as if they were perfectly reasonable.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



so why do they sell it????? Why would there be no profit?????? IS there no profit on a Rolls Royce????

See why we have to be 100% a liberal will be slow, to slow to understand the basics of capitalism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

Middleoftheroad said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



what is this gibberish supposed to mean?????????????????????????????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

expatriate said:


> He really is trollishly nonsensical at times... like he really KNOWS how completely off-kilter his "theories" are, yet he continues to present them as if they were perfectly reasonable.



so why do they sell Life insurance to those 80+????? Why would there be no profit?????? Is there no profit on a Rolls Royce????

See why we have to be 100% certaion a liberal will be slow, to slow to understand the basics of capitalism.


----------



## jillian (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > He really is trollishly nonsensical at times... like he really KNOWS how completely off-kilter his "theories" are, yet he continues to present them as if they were perfectly reasonable.
> ...



do they sell life insurance to people 80+? or are you just making that up? and what is the cost of that insurance if, in fact, they do sell it.

now try to formulate a coherent thought.

p.s. almost EVERY liberal on this board is smarter than you are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

jillian said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



of course people will sell you a Rolls Royce that costs them  $2 million to make  as long as they can charge you more than $2 million.

Its the most basic  principle of capitalism yet liberals lack the IQ to grasp it as you can see.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



intelligent wealthy individuals buy high end automobiles all the time.  If you have the disposable income, why not?

elderly wealthy people have undoubtedly taken care of their heirs long before they hit 80.  Anyone who would pay an UNBELIEVABLY EXORBITANT premium to buy a paltry term life policy at the age of 80, probably isn't smart enough to have the sort of income to afford it in the first place.  You'e an idiot and your act is beginning to wear thin.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



capitalism requires willing sellers and willing buyers meeting in the marketplace.  I am sure that, if some insurance company were asked by a healthy wealthy 80 year old customer if they would sell them a one million dollar insurance policy and the insurance company offered to do so if the monthly premiums were $500K/month, I am not sure that the customer would agree to such a cost/payout.  Insurance companies don't sell policies to 80 year olds because no 80 year old is his or her right mind would ever agree to the premium.  80 year olds are not attractive to insurance companies as customers.  Exorbitant insurance premiums are not attractive to elderly potential insurance customers.

Similarly, unlike your previous ridiculous assertion, sick people are absolutely NOT a health insurance company's best customer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

expatriate said:


> intelligent wealthy individuals buy high end automobiles all the time.  If you have the disposable income, why not?



what????????????? why are you being a stupid liberal by asking gibberish???? We all know people buy expensive cars!!!!!




expatriate said:


> elderly wealthy people have undoubtedly taken care of their heirs long before they hit 80.



wtf subject are you on?????????????????????????????





expatriate said:


> Anyone who would pay an UNBELIEVABLY EXORBITANT premium to buy a paltry term life policy at the age of 80, probably isn't smart enough to have the sort of income to afford it in the first place.  You'e an idiot and your act is beginning to wear thin.



einsurance: 
"At 80+, you may have difficulty finding life insurance, but its certainly worth a shot. Many insurers have found a niche by catering to older applicants.

Fill out our quote box on the left to connect with life insurance agents from your area. Even if they cannot insure you, they may be able to steer you toward a company that can."


1000% positive a liberal will be stupid!!!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > intelligent wealthy individuals buy high end automobiles all the time.  If you have the disposable income, why not?
> ...



like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.  Similarly, insurance companies do NOT think that sick people are the best customers for their health insurance policies.  And the reasons are similar:  why take on - or keep - a customer who any actuary will tell you is a losing bet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 16, 2012)

expatriate said:


> like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.




"Many insurers have found a niche by catering to older applicants."

would the super idiot lilberal bet $10,000 that life insurance companies don't sell to 80 year olds????


----------



## expatriate (Dec 16, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.
> ...



I would bet that precious few life insurance companies sell new life insurance policies to 80 year olds because of the extremely limited profitability in that segment of the market, and that there are an extremely limited number of potential customers who would require a new life insurance policy at that age AND would be willing to pay the exorbitant policy premium that any and every insurance company would need to charge to even think about writing such a policy.

Similarly, I would bet you whatever sum you chose that you will be unable to find any successful health insurance executive who would agree with YOU that sick people are their best customers and provide them with the best profit margin.

and as a postscript... your quote about insurers finding a niche with older applicants is not synonymous, and certainly does not prove, that those "niches" include many - if any - first time life insurance customers who are 80 years old.... and AGAIN, if you had the faintest understanding about how risk pools and actuarial analysis works, you would understand WHY selling a new life insurance policy to an 80 year old makes no sense to the insurance company and makes no sense to the 80 year old either.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 17, 2012)

expatriate said:


> like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.




"Many insurers have found a niche by catering to older applicants."

would the super idiot lilberal bet $10,000 that life insurance companies don't sell to 80 year olds????[/QUOTE]



expatriate said:


> I would bet that precious few



too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask what you would bet about I asked if you would  bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!

Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???


----------



## expatriate (Dec 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.
> ...





expatriate said:


> I would bet that precious few





> too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask what you would bet about I asked if you would  bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!
> 
> Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???



are there a handful of 80 year olds stupid enough to pay exorbitant premiums for a minimal amount of life insurance?  Perhaps.  I don't think it makes any sense to bet against the stupidity of the American people.  Is there a MARKET for first time insurance policies for 80 year olds? Of course not... certainly nothing of any substance.

Again... insurance came into this discussion as a side discussion when you said that sick people were the best customers for health insurance companies.  They are not.  They are the very worst customers for health insurance companies...much like 80 year olds are the very worst customers for life insurance companies.  Insurance companies don't make any money on either of those classifications of people.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 17, 2012)

expatriate said:


> like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.




"Many insurers have found a niche by catering to older applicants."

would the super idiot lilberal bet $10,000 that life insurance companies don't sell to 80 year olds????[/QUOTE]



expatriate said:


> I would bet that precious few



too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask what you would bet about I asked if you would  bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!

Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???[/quote]



expatriate said:


> are there a handful of 80 year olds stupid enough to pay exorbitant premiums for a minimal amount of life insurance?




too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask if 80 year olds wanted to buy I asked if you would bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!

Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???[/quote]


----------



## expatriate (Dec 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > like I said - and your own quote reaffirms, insurance companies don't sell life insurance policies to 80 year olds.
> ...





expatriate said:


> I would bet that precious few... and I would suggest that when einsurance suggested that many insurerers have found a niche catering to older applicanats, there were referring to those in their late 50's or early 60's....NOT their 80's which are off the chart of any actuary's spreadsheet.





> too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask what you would bet about I asked if you would  bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!
> 
> Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???





expatriate said:


> are there a handful of 80 year olds stupid enough to pay exorbitant premiums for a minimal amount of life insurance?






> too stupid so you try to change the subject?? I didn't ask if 80 year olds wanted to buy I asked if you would bet that your statement (above)"no insurance for 80 years old" was correct!
> 
> Would you like to bet or run away again with your liberal tail between your legs???



it's irrelevant to the subject of the thread.  There may very well be a handful of 80 year olds who are stupid enough to pay the exorbitant premiums that any insurance company would require in order to start a life insurance policy for someone over the median age of expiration.  There very well be insurance companies who would take the time to write such a bizarre life insurance policy where each month's premiums would be a significant portion of the policy payout, but there is no doubt that such a "market" if it really does exist, is minuscule in the extreme.  Insurance companies don't make money writing policies for 80 year olds, and most 80 years olds are smart enough to figure out that their assets are much more wisely spent than by giving enormous chunks of it away every month to an insurance company.  

The SUBJECT of this thread was your insane ideas about a "republican capitalistic health care system" in which you claimed, on more than one occasion, that sick people are the "BEST customers" of the health insurance industry, and YOU are the one who refuses to even attempt to argue for such a claim.  

That remains as ridiculous a statement as the one where you claim that insurance companies WANT to market life insurance to 80 year olds.

Your ploy to avoid talking about your ridiculous claim that sick people are the best customers for health insurance companies - which is so silly it still makes me nearly spit out a mouthful of tequila every time I read it - is clearly to change the topic to life insurance... a subject that you clearly know less than nothing about.

You should quit while you are only woefully behind and hope that this thread, and it's omnipresent proof of your total ignorance of the subject would slip down to page two of the current threads and thus, off everyone's radar - except mine of course - but even I would be willing to cut you some slack if you would just slink away instead of insisting upon posting more and more examples of what a brain dead grade school level obnoxious moron you really were.  Here's your chance.... nobody but the two of us is really reading this thread anyway.  Run away from your total lack of understanding about how insurance actually works.  I won't chase after you pointing at you idiocy any further... I promise.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 17, 2012)

Edward, there you are.  There was a question in another topic of yours you failed to really answer.  Answer it and I'll see you as fit to converse with.

Of course there was your eugenics rant also....

But hey, the road and taxing the substinance farmer or the middle class man?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2012)

expatriate said:


> That remains as ridiculous a statement as the one where you claim that insurance companies WANT to market life insurance to 80 year olds.


 
too completely stupid and 100% liberal !! If they don't want too why do they?? Do the Girl Scouts force them to do it??????


See why we're postive a liberal will lack the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care would work?? Sorry.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 18, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > That remains as ridiculous a statement as the one where you claim that insurance companies WANT to market life insurance to 80 year olds.
> ...



They don't market to 80 year olds.  And you cannot show me one piece of marketing from any American life insurance company that is aimed specifically at 80 year olds as first time customers.

I'll wait.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2012)

expatriate said:


> They don't market to 80 year olds.



see why we are positive a liberal will lack the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care would work??




Life insurance ages 85 - Cheap Term Life Insurance for Males
10 year term quotes for healthy individuals age 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, and 85 years 
old for term life insurance or whole life insurance for top rated carriers such as ...
termlifeinsurancemales.com/life-insurance-by-age/life-insurance-ages-81-to-85/
Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old | Mintco Financial, Inc.
Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old. Yes, it's true that the average funeral 
costs about $6,500 not including the burial plot, according to the National ...
Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old | Mintco Financial, Inc.
Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old | PRLog
May 21, 2012 ... Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old. Yes, it's true that the average funeral 
costs about $6500 not including the burial plot, according to ...
Life Insurance for Seniors over 80 years old | PRLog


----------



## expatriate (Dec 18, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > They don't market to 80 year olds.
> ...




$5K to $50K  funeral cost coverage insurance!  ROFLMFAO!!!!!!

that's some funny shit.  

Notice how none of that stuff ever talks about the premium?  LOL


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 18, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Notice how none of that stuff ever talks about the premium?  LOL



see why we say stupid stupid stupid!!!!


Age                        $100,000              $250,000
Male Age 81       $395                       $903 per month
Male Age 82       $453                       $1049 per month
Male Age 83       $531                       $1245 per month
Male Age 84       $620                       $1468 per month
Male Age 85       $718                       $1719 per month


----------



## expatriate (Dec 18, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Notice how none of that stuff ever talks about the premium?  LOL
> ...




stupid?

How stupid does someone have to be who is 85 years old and  has so little disposable income that they have not seen fit to provide any coverage for their heirs that they now would be willing to pay nearly two grand a month for a paltry 250K worth of coverage.  Now that is what I call a market for a handful of idiots - certainly not a vibrant capitalistic marketplace... but one, I guess, in which you might find yourself in.  If that is the case, rest assured, you are FAR from the norm.

and how stupid is it to think that some company offering funeral coverage for old geezers is anywhere NEAR a vibrant marketplace for LIFE insurance coverage... especially when the ENTIRE life insurance dodge has been one where you have unsuccessfully avoided admitting  that your ORIGINAL position that "sick people are the health insurance industry's BEST customers" was totally full of shit. 

Why not defend that position instead of offering some marginally profitable funeral insurance coverage for old geezers who had not done any financial planning as some slight of hand trick to get us to forget your basic fundamentally total ignorance about the insurance industry in general?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



yes stupid!! you said there were no monthly premiums. I showed them to you, and then, oddly, you changed the subject rather than acknowledged your liberal stupidity? How will you learn if you don't face the ignorance of liberalism?? Do you want to be a liberal all your life??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I never said there were NO monthly premiums.  

Again... paying an exorbitant premium at age 80 for a paltry payout just so you don't put your children into debt planting your dead body is not what most people think of when they talk about "life insurance"... and remember, the whole life insurance argument that you have now so ferociously latched onto has all been a dodge by you to avoid recanting the IDIOCY of your statement that sick people were health insurance companies "best customers" which, along with your foolish argument about life insurance, shows the absolute void in your knowledge about insurance.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2012)

expatriate said:


> I never said there were NO monthly premiums.



you said there was no life insurance for 80 years old!!!! and have yet to admit to the blind brain dead stupidity of your liberalism!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Again... paying an exorbitant premium at age 80 for a paltry payout just so you don't put your children into debt planting your dead body is not what most people think of when they talk about "life insurance"...



dear, I showed you the premiums for a $100k and $250k policy, a little more than burial expenses- right??.

See why we are 1000% positive a liberal will be stupid. Sorry.

But, you don't have to be a liberal all you life!!


----------



## expatriate (Dec 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Again... paying an exorbitant premium at age 80 for a paltry payout just so you don't put your children into debt planting your dead body is not what most people think of when they talk about "life insurance"...
> ...



still avoiding your idiocy, I see.  Why am I not surprised?  But again, regarding the silly life insurance policy quotes you posted.... who in their right mind would pay those exorbitant premiums at that stage in their lives? I notice you didn't post a link to those supposed quotes.  I wonder if the insurance company that you supposedly got them is reputable, or if  they even find anyone that age willing to fall for that sort of giant premium. 

And who, in their right mind would EVER think that sick people were the best customers for health insurance companies?  Only you.  

And AGAIN, you flaming mincing limp-wristed twit, calling me, or any other man "dear" is sorta creepy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 19, 2012)

expatriate said:


> still avoiding your idiocy, I see.  .



you said the way insurance worked no one would provide insurance for sick people or old people. I showed you several web sites, and you still won't admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand how capitalist Republican health care would work??? 

What does that tell you about the liberal character and IQ.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > still avoiding your idiocy, I see.  .
> ...



Did you read those websites?  Your own einsurnace quote showed the unlikelihood of anyone that age finding life insurance at anything that could be considered a reasonable and affordable rate.

Most of those companies have a "modified death benefit" which cuts the actual policy value to nearly nothing for the first two or three years AFTER the policy is written... on an 80 year old!  It's a silly issue... it's an all but non-existent market because the vast majority of potential customers cannot afford the product, and those that COULD, are smart enough to not buy it... and most potential insurance companies don't OFFER such a product because they know that there are not enough stupid people in the marketplace willing to pay exorbitant premiums for a sliding benefit... and even fewer stupid people in that marketplace with the available cash flow to actually pay the premiums, willing or otherwise.

AND AGAIN!!! This is all just a dodge by you - in a thread you started about health care, to avoid the silly statement - MADE BY YOU NEARLY 90 POSTS AGO - that sick people were the very best customers for health insurance companies.   Health insurance companies don't make a  profit on sick people... they make their profit from really healthy people who never file claims.  Ergo... the best customers for health insurance companies are NOT the sick people, which was your assertion.  Are you EVER gonna just admit that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to how the insurance industry operates?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Your own einsurnace quote showed the unlikelihood of anyone that age finding life insurance at anything that could be considered a reasonable and affordable rate.



of course all things are priced the same under capitalism: cost plus a little profit. You can buy a Rolls, a Rolex, life insurance at 80  or a Tata Motors car in India. All are reasonable and affordable to those who buy them of course or they would not buy them. 

Why not take a step back and see if you can now say something intelligent against capitalism in general or capitalist health care.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Your own einsurnace quote showed the unlikelihood of anyone that age finding life insurance at anything that could be considered a reasonable and affordable rate.
> ...



And since the premiums for life insurance for 80 year olds are so outrageous, only those who are not only wealthy enough to afford them, but simultaneously stupid enough to buy them or to even have waited that long to do any responsible estate planning, actually buy them, there is no realistic market for those policies... and life insurance companies know that which is why few, if any of them, market policies to 80 year olds or expect to sell many even if they do.  

And....since I embrace capitalism, why would I want to find something to say against it.  

Since you said that sick people are the "best customers" for health insurance companies, why don't you defend that position by explaining why a health insurance company wouldn't rather insure those who never file claims against their policies than those who always do?  

It seems to me that you put your foot in your mouth and, rather than just ADMIT that you really don't understand anything about actuarial analysis or risk pool economics, you keep trying to run away from your own words.

what a pussy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2012)

expatriate said:


> explaining why a health insurance company wouldn't rather insure those who never file claims against their policies than those who always do?



it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge to make a profit.

similiarly, it doesnt matter what options you want on your car as long as the compnay is free to charge enough to make a profit.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > explaining why a health insurance company wouldn't rather insure those who never file claims against their policies than those who always do?
> ...



Ug.  

Ok stud.  And when I am likely to die an expensive long death what are my premiums going to be?

Yup.  On a true open market they will become prohibitatively expensive.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > explaining why a health insurance company wouldn't rather insure those who never file claims against their policies than those who always do?
> ...



still dodging I see?  If some sick person were able to GET health insurance, their premiums would be so exorbitant that they would be better off self insuring.

Why don't you be a man and just admit that your statement that sick people are the best customers for health insurance companies was completely wrong?

Do you have a set down there or not?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 20, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ok stud.  And when I am likely to die an expensive long death what are my premiums going to be?



enough so the company can make a profit 



Toronado3800 said:


> Yup.  On a true open market they will become prohibitatively expensive.



yes dear if you want a car with a space shuttle capability it will be very expensive. Are you a child???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok stud.  And when I am likely to die an expensive long death what are my premiums going to be?
> ...



Hey!  You answered a question!  

So....if my premiuns go up to 20k a year when I'm 68 is that ok?  Capitalism says so, so answer honestly.

And I say I like universal coverage because I like everyone paying everyday of their lives so don't be shy.

Do you support a true open market for insurance?  No regulations on rate increases?

Don't be shy like usual Edward.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 21, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> So....if my premiuns go up to 20k a year when I'm 68 is that ok?  Capitalism says so, so answer honestly.



too stupid!!! 100% stupid!! in a capitalist economy  the price is limited to cost plus a tiny profit until competition eliminates the profit.




Toronado3800 said:


> Do you support a true open market for insurance?  No regulations on rate increases?



too stupid!!! 100% stupid!! Econ 101 for you!! in a capitalist economy  the price is limited to cost plus a tiny profit until competition eliminates the profit.




Don't be shy like usual Edward.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 21, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > So....if my premiuns go up to 20k a year when I'm 68 is that ok?  Capitalism says so, so answer honestly.
> ...


[/QUOTE]

So when I am 70 my insurance company should be able to charge me whatever is needed to turn a profit?

A little man hurls insults Edward.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 21, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I guess it has really been Edwina all along.

 nutless.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 22, 2012)

expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.

similiarly, it doesnt matter what options you want on your car as long as the company is free to charge enough to make a profit.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 22, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Now wait.  We are talking free market where my medical history can be taken into account?  Or are you talking some strange socialist system where only age matters?


----------



## expatriate (Dec 22, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



are sick people the best customers for health care insurance providers or aren't they?


----------



## expatriate (Dec 23, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Edwina.... it really is a simple question:  do you understand how insurance companies utilize a risk pool or don't you?  Do you really think that an insurance company prices their policies to make a profit on every customer, or not?  Do you honestly think that sick people are the best customers for health insurance companies or are you ready to admit you don't know shit from fat meat about how that industry really operates?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 24, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Edwina.... it really is a simple question:  do you understand how insurance companies utilize a risk pool or don't you?



Of course he doesn't.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 24, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Edwina.... it really is a simple question:  do you understand how insurance companies utilize a risk pool or don't you?
> ...



I think it is really hilarious that a guy who starts a thread insulting liberals about their supposed lack of IQ can spend the entire thread stepping on his own dick showing how STOOPID he is about the subject.


Merry Christmas Edwina!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 25, 2012)

it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.

similiarly, it doesnt matter what options you want on your car as long as the company is free to charge enough to make a profit.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 25, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.
> 
> similiarly, it doesnt matter what options you want on your car as long as the company is free to charge enough to make a profit.



Got it.  So if someone has cancer and is up for renewal the free market lets the insurance company charge them $80k for that year.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 25, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.
> ...



depends on what the contract says, of course. The company that makes the lowest margin will have the lowest prices and the most customers-right?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 25, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Contract puts it up for renewal every year and yup, the company which gets it stuck to them the least by cancer patients will be able to charge the least.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 25, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> the company which gets it stuck to them the least by cancer patients will be able to charge the least.



and??????????????????????????????????


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 25, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > the company which gets it stuck to them the least by cancer patients will be able to charge the least.
> ...



We are finding middle ground.

Now what if I am diagnosed with cancer in November and renewals are up in December.  Suddenly I have become a $80k liability.  Should the insurance company charge me $80,001 or whatever they need to turn a profit?


----------



## expatriate (Dec 25, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.
> 
> similiarly, it doesnt matter what options you want on your car as long as the company is free to charge enough to make a profit.



So... is it your assertion that actuaries design rates for each customer of health insurance companies so that every customer generates a profit for the company? yes or no?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't matter how sick someone is or how sick someone is likely to be since actuaries tell you what you must charge in each case to make a profit.
> ...



yes of course, this is why older people pay more than younger people!! Profit per person will depend on whether the health care costs  turn out to be higher or lower than actuarially expected  for that person.

These are elementary concepts that as a liberal you lack the IQ to understand. Sorry


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



again... your complete and utter lack of understanding of how risk pool economics allow insurance companies to operate is laughable.

You talk about IQ a lot.  What, might I ask, is YOUR IQ.  I cannot imagine, that if it IS triple digits, that the second digit is any greater than a '2'.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



We were talking about assigned risk for individuals not just groups.  So you believe in that, charging for the individual's risk?  It does insure profit and involve the least regulation.

Be nice Edward.  I know you had a rough day, we all have rough days.  No one here is calling you names.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> We were talking about assigned risk for individuals not just groups.



to stupid he asked about individual profit



Toronado3800 said:


> So you believe in that, charging for the individual's risk?



yes dear even Obamacare allows that 




Toronado3800 said:


> It does insure profit and involve the least regulation.



yes it does, and????????????




Toronado3800 said:


> Be nice Edward.  I know you had a rough day, we all have rough days.  No one here is calling you names.



but why would they??? Am i a liberal?????????????? Conservatives did not spy for Stalin or elect a president who voted to the left of Bernie sanders?????????


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > We were talking about assigned risk for individuals not just groups.
> ...



again... your understanding of risk pooling is negligible.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

expatriate said:


> again... your understanding of risk pooling is negligible.



of course if true you would not be so afraid to say why.
What does your fear tell you??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > again... your understanding of risk pooling is negligible.
> ...




health insurance LOVE healthy customers and they abhor sick ones.  Healthy ones, they can charge health insurance rates that are extremely high , given the fact that they are reasonably certain, due to an understanding of the concept of pooling risk, that they will collect all of those health insurance premiums from healthy customers month after month year after year, and hardly ever have to give them a dime's worth of coverage... because they are healthy!  The sick people that they insure - the ones that you claimed were their "best customers" - are a drain on their profit margin and, as soon as they can dump them at renewal time, they do.

It is clear, that you don't begin to comprehend pooled risk, and, as such, you should probably not be showcasing your less than average IQ on a subject that you know precious little about.

Really Edwina... I'd chop off thirty points from my IQ and still best yours by double digits.  You are just about as stupid and arrogant a poster from either side of the political spectrum as I have ever seen... not exactly the position one should place themselves if they are actually trying to carry on an intelligent discussion.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

expatriate said:


> The sick people that they insure - the ones that you claimed were their "best customers" - are a drain on their profit margin and, as soon as they can dump them at renewal time, they do.



too stupid!! an insurance company in a free market can make more on a high risk pool than a low risk pool as long as it is free cover its costs and make a profit!!

Still over your head??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > The sick people that they insure - the ones that you claimed were their "best customers" - are a drain on their profit margin and, as soon as they can dump them at renewal time, they do.
> ...



you assume that self insurance is not a viable option.  In a free market, a truly sick person could not possibly cover - individually - the cost of his or her health care.  The risk pool is both high and low, which makes it possible to spread the risk among high AND low risk customers such that healthy ones will not feel that they are paying TOO much and sick ones will be able to afford the premiums - until the heartless insurance companies dump them come renewal time, of course.

And please... you really ARE stupid, and, therefore, it is reasonable for me to refer to you as such.  I am not stupid.  You look like, not only a moron, but an obnoxious one, by continually insulting those who are demonstrably smarter than you.

again... I'd have to have my head buried in a ditch for anything you possibly have to say to be "over my head".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

expatriate said:


> you assume that self insurance is not a viable option.



too stupid!! IF you have evidence of this I'll pay you $10,000 Bet?? I Never even brought it up and yet i assumed it was not a viable option??


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > you assume that self insurance is not a viable option.
> ...



if a sick person paid enough in health insurance for a health insurance company to cover the cost of their care AND make a reasonable profit, why would they ever buy insurance?

Can you answer that?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 26, 2012)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




simple, because you may be far sicker tomorrow than you are today.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



and, knowing that a sick person will, more likely than not, be sicker tomorrow than today, why would any insurance company offer them insurance that could possibly be any cheaper for the customer than self insurance, or have a chance of being profitable for them if it weren't?

or...how can sick people be the "best customers" of health insurance companies as you have previously asserted?  How does the person whose risk you must spread amongst the healthy customers be better customers than those who pay premiums and never file claims?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 28, 2012)

expatriate said:


> and, knowing that a sick person will, more likely than not, be sicker tomorrow than today,




too stupid!! Some sick people make complete recoveries and some don't. Some cars require huge repairs under warranty and some require huge insurance settlements, and some don't!! As long as you are free to cover your anticipated costs in 
the price you charge you can make a  profit.

Now even you understand how capitalism works.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > and, knowing that a sick person will, more likely than not, be sicker tomorrow than today,
> ...



do you have any idea how health insurance companies determine who they will insure and what premiums they will charge them? Obviously not. Health insurance companies are not really all that concerned about making a profit off every customer individually... they are more concerned about their aggregate profit or loss.... which is why they love to insure healthy people and why they boot sick ones off their rolls at the earliest opportunity...  but clearly, risk pool economics is not something you are at all familiar with.



and really.... your continual use of the phrase "too stupid" is really quite silly coming from the guy who claimed that sick people were health insurance companies' best customers.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > and, knowing that a sick person will, more likely than not, be sicker tomorrow than today,
> ...



Sorry if you are home sick.  A lot of folks do get better. Many get a ywar or two of chemo at a cost similar to a house and then die anyway, or worse linger on, oh well.  Not my problem.  If you can afford insurance or find a charity to take you in, great.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 28, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Edwina really doesn't "get it", does he?  Of COURSE there are some sick people who get less sick, but actuarial analysis suggests that most do not.  Most sick people get sicker, and insurance companies try to clear them from their rolls all the time.  The more sick people they can avoid insuring or stop insuring, and the more healthy ones they can keep as customers, the greater their profit, in the aggregate, will be.  That is the entire theory behind pooling risk.  The greater number of healthy clients that never file claims, when coupled with a judicious culling of higher risk clients, the greater the profit.  As long as health insurance companies are not constrained from minimizing their risk in order to maximize their profits, the more a "republican capitalist health care system" will cast aside those people who are truly sick and who truly need health care.  It really is "compassionate conservative capitalism" at its most selfish and evil - a "health insurance" industry that really has no real concern for people's health whatsoever.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 29, 2012)

expatriate said:


> Most sick people get sicker,



and most cars get older and sicker and more costly to maintain, but you can always find someone to repair your car and make a profit no matter what age or condition its in.


See why we are 100% certain a  liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalism.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Most sick people get sicker,
> ...



This is ridiculous.  At some point I will be too expensive to keep alive.  

When my 68 Mustang receipts were tallied I could have bought a three or four year old one cheaper.  Its an interesting analogy but until we can recreate perfectly fine hearts like I could recreate a fine 351W and C4 it doesnt apply.

Edward, you have some good points and are a good team player.  This is real life though.  Things just aren't that cut and dry.

Just like when a country has substinance level farmers in it and you want to build a road, ya just have to unfairly tax the middle class more.


----------



## Koios (Dec 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



No.  Probably not that low.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Most sick people get sicker,
> ...



Your car analogy fails because unlike a car, we don't have the option of trading the old body in when it gets too expensive to maintain, or doing without one when we can no longer afford the cost of maintenance and insurance.


----------



## jillian (Dec 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Most sick people get sicker,
> ...



it's always amusing watching the really, really stupid people, like you, talk about others' IQ's.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2012)

jillian said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



of course if stupid you would not be so afraid to say where. What does your fear tell you??

You are in a league with rdean to be the most substance free liberal here!!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 30, 2012)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Ey, did u ever answer that question on who is going to pay for the road in that topic you started Edward?

Happy New Year btw if we don't talk until.afterwards


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2012)

Koios said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



well, in the USSR everyone was very very poor (about 20% of what we have here) because there were no capitalist incentives much like there are none in our current liberal health care  system. 20% of $8000 (what it costs here per person). From that you can extrapolate that $5-7k per person in savings is not unrealistic with a capitalist system.


----------



## Koios (Dec 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Canadians have more wealth, per capita, among their middle class than do we.  Are Canadians more capitalistic than the USA?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2012)

Koios said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Koios said:
> ...



probably about the same, why do you ask??? They have huge energy wealth now and had far better housing capitalism.


----------



## Koios (Dec 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Koios said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I ask since Canada is nearby / our region of the world, not to mention it exists, while the USSR no longer does. 

Plus the have national health care, and more lucrative assistance programs for poor and unemployed, plus high income taxes.  Seems they're more socialized than us, and not very probably about the same.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 30, 2012)

Koios said:


> Seems they're more socialized than us, and not very probably about the same.


not really, they have smart immigration, they take the rich while we take the poor,  we have highest taxes on the wealthy, they have more capitalism in housing so no depression, we have higher corporate taxes, we have military  they don't etc etc. We have national socialist health care too, it just spread out among many inefficient programs.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2012)

Canadians are VERY capitalistic but you'd all think we we're communists.  No government here dares touch health care.  God knows the Conservative Party has tried and lost every election where they've proposed US style 2-tier health care.  

The Americans tried to have our health care system labelled as an "unfair business subsidy" under NAFTA because Canadian employers pay just under 1% of the employee's wages (under $200,000 per yr).  The average wage in Canada is $46,000 per year so employers pay, on average $460.00 per year per employee for health care.  Compared to the cost of American private health insurance which American employers purchase for their employees, this is peanuts and adds greatly to the cost of good and services for companies offering health care to their employees.

Americans go on and on about our higher taxes, but if you factor in health care costs and co-pays (which we absolutely do not have for doctors or hospitals), it works out to be less in Canada.

But yeah, we work hard, however we have a LOT of employment regulations.  Minimum wage is $10.25 per hour.  If you work more than 44 hours per week, you are entitled to overtime for the excess hours at time and a half.  No employee can work more than 60 hours per week unless his/her employer applies for and obtains a special special projects clearance from the Ministry of Labour.  All employees are entitled to a minimum of two weeks vacation or 4% vacation pay in lieu of vacation.  Upon termination without cause, employees are entitled to one month's notice for each year of service, or severance equal to one month's pay for each year of service in the case of terminations without notice.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> not really, they have smart immigration, they take the rich while we take the poor,  we have highest taxes on the wealthy, they have more capitalism in housing so no depression, we have higher corporate taxes, we have military  they don't etc etc.



We take the poor too, and we take their elderly parents and then we give health care to the entire family, even those with pre-existing conditions.  The right-wing in Canada goes bat-shit crazy over this.

We have way more regulation in banking which prevents the kinds of loosey goosey, sub-prime lending that got your banking system in trouble.  When Canadian bankers asked for relaxation in regulation in 1999 so they could remain competitive with US banks, our Liberal government refused.  This meant no sub-prime lending, and tight debt service ratios for home buyers.  Banks could only lend 75% of the appraised value of a property without risk insurance.  As a result, there was no housing bubble, no foreclosure, mortgage or banking crisis in Canada, and other countries are now looking at our banking regulations to prevent banking melt-downs in future.



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> We have national socialist health care too, it just spread out among many inefficient programs.



The problem is your government health care programs are modelled after your private insurance programs which have an enormously high administration costs - the highest in the world by far, putting a lie to the whole notion that private business can do it better and cheaper than government.  Americans spend nearly double the amount per capita on health care than Canadians and yet Canadians have both a longer life-expectancy, and a lower infant mortality rate, but are also rated higher on the UN quality of life index.

Our heath care program is very efficient.  Administration costs are less than 10% of the total amount Canadians spend on health care, versus over 30% in the US.  The whole pre-approval process used by US insurance companies and Medicare is non-existent in Canada, freeing up doctors and hospitals to focus on the health of the patient and not fighting for approvals.  There are no third party billing companies for doctors or hospitals in Canada so those costs are non-existent.  Freed from dealing with insurance companies, doctors have more time to see more patients, and make more money.  Malpractice insurance is MUCH cheaper in Canada.  Doctors make more money in the US, but keep more of what they earn in Canada.


----------



## Mr Natural (Dec 30, 2012)

Dragonlady said:


> Canadians are VERY capitalistic but you'd all think we we're communists.  No government here dares touch health care.  God knows the Conservative Party has tried and lost every election where they've proposed US style 2-tier health care.
> 
> The Americans tried to have our health care system labelled as an "unfair business subsidy" under NAFTA because Canadian employers pay just under 1% of the employee's wages (under $200,000 per yr).  The average wage in Canada is $46,000 per year so employers pay, on average $460.00 per year per employee for health care.  Compared to the cost of American private health insurance which American employers purchase for their employees, this is peanuts and adds greatly to the cost of good and services for companies offering health care to their employees.
> 
> ...




It sounds very civilized.


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 30, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> It sounds very civilized.



Our biggest problem is that the US is our largest trading partner and many of our manufacturing companies are US owned, so if your economy is in the toilet, Canadian plants get closed first.  At one time, General Motors in Oshawa employed over 20,000 workers at four different plants.  Now they have one shift operating at one plant - 2000 workers.

Someone on this board was gloating that Cattipillar had moved to Texas because the climate for doing business was so good there.  No, Catipillar was a Canadian company, an iconic Canadian brand, which was purchased by a firm from Texas.  They promised the workers when they bought the company that the jobs would stay in Canada, but that promise lasted less than a year.

Many of our iconic Canadian companies have been bought by large American firms.  The Hudson's Bay Company, Canada's first corporation, was bought by NRDC Equity from New York, and Molson's Brewery, founded in 1755 as Canada's second corporation, is now owned by Budweiser.  Molson's Canadian Lager Beer, the largest selling brand in Canada, is now under American control.  Wendy's bought out the Tim Horton's coffee shop chain years ago.  

I liked it better when the foreign investment review board ensured that Canadian companies and Canadian jobs were owned by Canadians.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 31, 2012)

Dragonlady said:


> putting a lie to the whole notion that private business can do it better and cheaper than government.



dear, a government monopoly will never be efficient. This is common sense??? How could you not know that?? American health insurance companies are not allowed to comptete so of course they are not efficient.

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


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Dec 31, 2012)

Dragonlady said:


> Americans spend nearly double the amount per capita on health care than Canadians and yet Canadians have both a longer life-expectancy, and a lower infant mortality rate, but are also rated higher on the UN quality of life index.


Canada is a poor tiny country with an efficient socialist health care system. But, we have to subsidize you because you are so poor. If you had to pay full price for everything and invent everything as we do you'd all be dirt poor.  Sorry!!


----------



## Dragonlady (Dec 31, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Canada is a poor tiny country with an efficient socialist health care system. But, we have to subsidize you because you are so poor. If you had to pay full price for everything and invent everything as we do you'd all be dirt poor.  Sorry!!



Look at a map a$$hat, Canada is a large country which is in the top 15 wealthiest countries in the world, in spite of the fact that most of our wealth is held in resources such as oil and base metals.

*The US most assuredly is not subsidized by the United States in any way shape or form.  We pay MUCH higher prices for our goods and services than do Americans and we have lower rates of poverty and unemployment, our education system is far superior to US schools, and our standard of living is higher.*  Our banking system is one of the most stable in the world.  

Every survey and measure consistently ranks Canada as one of the top countries to live:  We were ranked 6th this year, and one of the top 10 countries to be born in (9th).  The US is ranked 16th as a best country to be born in.  

The only top 10 ranking the US has in liveability is the "Quality of Life" index where the US ranked No. 7 because of infrastructure.  In even quality of life, Canadians have it all over Americans.  We're number 2 and our cousins the Australians are No. 1.  We have larger homes, less crime, a very low rate of violent crime and murder due to strict gun controls, and we make a lot of money.


----------



## expatriate (Dec 31, 2012)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is a poor tiny country with an efficient socialist health care system. But, we have to subsidize you because you are so poor. If you had to pay full price for everything and invent everything as we do you'd all be dirt poor.  Sorry!!
> ...



I realize it's hard to imagine, but Edwina is even more stupid than he is obnoxious and annoying.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 1, 2013)

I think Edward spent some time in Eastern Europe during the fall of communism and hates it.   

It left him with a hatred of any government controls.  Like the ones which have kept our economy running and prevented a socialist revolution.

He gets stuck on admitting Japanese cars grew equal (better in his words) to American cars even though Japan's market is protected by tariffs, and with this question in one of his posts asking who should be taxed to build a road, substinance farmers or those with money.

Far as his conversational style, perhaps English is not his first language.  My Spanish SUCKS so I admire anyone who is bilingual.  In some houses even folks just cuss at eachother and deal in absolutes so we must remember to have patience.  The U.S. is the great melting pot and if Edward has a distaste for all social assistance he probably works his rear off to support himself and thus keeps the economy going.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 1, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> I think Edward spent some time in Eastern Europe during the fall of communism and hates it.
> 
> It left him with a hatred of any government controls.  Like the ones which have kept our economy running and prevented a socialist revolution.



That doesn't excuse him insulting other posters.  As I said, I don't normally comment on spelling and grammar because I need a full-time proof reader for my posts, but when a poster thinks it's clever to call another "intellectually inferior", I'm not prepared to cut him any slack.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 1, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The only top 10 ranking the US has in liveability is the "Quality of Life" index where the US ranked No. 7 because of infrastructure.



utter total pure blind stupidity. The USA created the world with Jefferson and WW2. We invented freedom, gifted it to the world,  and hold 90% of the world's patents!! Switzerland and Canada and many others are cute fun little and irrelevent countries and lets not forget they are but tiny tiny satellite's of Mr. Jefferson's philosophy. Without the USA, Hitler Stalin or Mao would be running the world now. Civilization comes from America. America is the worlds last best hope for freedom!!
Got it now???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 1, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The only top 10 ranking the US has in liveability is the "Quality of Life" index where the US ranked No. 7 because of infrastructure.
> ...



What's your answer for those who were buying German bonds or dealing with the NAZIs?  Kinda strange how the isolationists and anti communits got along.

I disagree with the ridiculous tone of your previous statement Edward.  Even if the U.S. Was vital in defeating Hitler and holding the U.S.S.R. in check your attitude makes me want to disagree with you.  Your debate coach or family failed to teach ya how to make a point or bring others to your point of view.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jan 1, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> utter total pure blind stupidity. The USA created the world with Jefferson and WW2. We invented freedom, gifted it to the world,  and hold 90% of the world's patents!! Switzerland and Canada and many others are cute fun little and irrelevent countries and lets not forget they are but tiny tiny satellite's of Mr. Jefferson's philosophy. Without the USA, Hitler Stalin or Mao would be running the world now. Civilization comes from America. America is the worlds last best hope for freedom!!
> Got it now???



This paragraph is total umitigated bullshit.  The United States is a great country, or rather it used to be before it was taken over by the greedy and the unprincipled.  

Unless the people can take their country back from those who put their own interests ahead of the nation's interests, it will continue on it's current road of decline.  As long as your politicians continue to pander to the elite and the multi-national corporations, your quality of living will continue to erode.

The United States didn't invent freedom or democracy.  It was a beacon of hope against communism, but with no real foe, the only enemy you have now is the greed and avarice of your population.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jan 1, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> This paragraph is total umitigated bullshit.  The United States is a great country, or rather it used to be before it was taken over by the greedy and the unprincipled.



it still very very very great because it created civilization on earth and defends it. If it were gone are the Girl Scouts going to defend you?? Come to think of it they would probably do a better job that your tiny impotent military. You're like an ungrateful child. You live in our house but fail to appreciate the huge gift. 




Dragonlady said:


> As long as your politicians continue to pander to the elite and the multi-national corporations, your quality of living will continue to erode.



dear why not be specific and name a multinational that isn't saintly and wonderful? Its easy to pretend your Marxist BS is true, but get specific and find out?? Are you afraid?? Why don't you create a multi national?? Do you have anything that the world wants to buy more than anything else or do you just enjoy flapping your gums??




Dragonlady said:


> The United States didn't invent freedom or democracy.  It was a beacon of hope against communism,



actually dear Jefferson was long before communism?? Sorry





Dragonlady said:


> but with no real foe, the only enemy you have now is the greed and avarice of your population.



any examples or just pretending again????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 14, 2013)

there4eyeM said:


> This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?



Dear, we have Anti-Trust laws now. Sorry to crush you.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> ...



Thank goodness for them liberal anti trust laws


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 14, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



not sure why you call them liberal? Capitalists generally support competition so generally are opposed to monopolies


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



We agree the regulations are a good idea then and are necessary for a capitalist system.

Still they aren't exactly in the Constitution so I was givin u a hard time and winking.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 14, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Still they aren't exactly in the Constitution so I was givin u a hard time and winking.



they, like the Bill Of Rights, were not in the Constitution because they were considered a given. If you put something in the Constitution it  can become the subject and liberal government whimsy like the right to bear arms. It clearly says you have the right to bear arms, but now liberals are saying you don't have the right to bear bullets.


----------



## lynn63 (Feb 20, 2013)

Since the 80's doctors and other healthcare providers have been making less money and it shows when so many are in group practices instead of solo.


----------



## Bfgrn (Feb 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.
> ...



Econ 101...IF you are working (operating is proper term) at cost or below, YOU GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

You are a FUCKING MORON...


----------



## Underhill (Feb 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



And what you are forgetting is the fact that capitalist health care is what brought us to where we are.   

Before insurance came along, we had exactly that.   And those who had serious injuries or sickness lost everything.   Insurance came along but only some could afford it.   So states and unions worked to mandate insurance for employees.    

Up to this point it was purely market driven.   The problem was insurance cost were too high for many, so people were still left uncovered and would often lose everything when they became old or infirm.  

So government insurance came along.   Medicaid and then Medicare.   And they have generally worked quite well.   

The problems with health insurance are not new.   And they aren't all that hard to diagnose.   They have very little to do with government insurance and everything to do with our medicated culture.    In 10 years alone (1996-2006) the number of doctors visits per person increased by 25%.  

And the stats are the same across the board.   We spend more time at the doctors, take more medicines, have more surgeries and spend more time convalescing at home than we used to.

So is it any wonder that cost have skyrocketed?

But there are solutions.   And other countries have implemented them with varying degrees of success.   

So rather than pine for a earlier time that never really existed, perhaps we should look for examples that actually work and model our system after those.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr003.pdf


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 20, 2013)

Underhill said:


> And what you are forgetting is the fact that capitalist health care is what brought us to where we are.



dear, if capitalism made is the richest country in human history why would it fail in one industry: health care??? Are you saying that if Americans shopped with their own money and providers had to compete on the basis of price and quality our system would get worse rather than 600% better and cheaper??


See why we are positive a liberal will be nearly illiterate??


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, if capitalism made is the richest country in human history why would it fail in one industry: health care??? Are you saying that if Americans shopped with their own money and providers had to compete on the basis of price and quality our system would get worse rather than 600% better and cheaper??



Because health care isn't a product that you can comparison price shop for.  When you are sick, you can't take competing quotes and sign a contract for the best price.  Health care insurance is control by mega corporations who fix prices and don't really compete.

The US is the only first world country in the world without government run health care and it's the most expensive, paper ridden system in the world.  The rest of the world looks at American health insurance as a sad joke.  

I haven't filled out a health insurance form in Canada in over 10 years.  The last one was a claim for a new pair of glasses, so I guess I'll be doing it again soon.  I have my OHIP card and my supplemental insurance card, and they get swiped and my provider gets paid.

That's pretty much all my provider has to do too.  My doctor has to submit a monthly bill to OHIP with a list of patients and treatments.  That's it.  His receptionist does it for him.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 20, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Because health care isn't a product that you can comparison price shop for.



of course, as usual,  very first sentence, wrong wrong wrong, dead wrong!! In Japan all prices are published for every tiny little thing you can imagine, every tiny thing!!!Its the law!!!

Also, I just met a guy who took a injured worker to an immediate care center. It cost him $200-300, while we all agreed a typical ER would have been 5-10 times more. He did his shopping . In the future he knows where to go and so do the rest of us with out shopping!

See how capitalism works, dear. Can't your husband explain it to you further??


----------



## Dragonlady (Feb 20, 2013)

Then why does the US have the most expensive health care in the world.  If competition is driving your prices down, why does your health care cost 2 or three times as much as the rest of the world.  It's not that much better than the rest of the world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Then why does the US have the most expensive health care in the world. If competition is driving your prices down, why does your health care cost 2 or three times as much as the rest of the world.  It's not that much better than the rest of the world.



Dear, OP claims a liberal will lack the IQ to understand capitalist Republican health care; you have just proven the OP is 100% correct!! Thank you. Hopefully some good can come of it if you and other liberals have the character and IQ to learn, but sadly this is almost impossible for a liberal.

Anyway, US is most expensive because it is not capitalist at all!!  
The six major liberal 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, plus, liberals have made capitalist competition among health insurance companies illegal!!

Our system is a socialist spaghetti mess compared to your single payer relatively less wasteful socialist mess.

All that will be way way over your head but perhaps you can discuss it with others and try your best to understand it?? Please try. This could be the start of a new life for you? Do you think you can do it? My fee is $0. I regard it as my democratic duty.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Because health care isn't a product that you can comparison price shop for.
> ...



Why do you cherry pick and ignore the things you can't answer? 

hon

Think I'll do the same

hon

because, in all the miles of crap you've written, you did get this one thing correct

hon



> Our system is a socialist spaghetti mess



Good for you 

hon

Your hero, Ronnie Ray-Gun's EMTALA is indeed a socialist mess

hon

Some of us are sick of paying YOUR health care bills and some of us think its time you started paying your own health care bills

hon

Its time for you to quit your damn whining 

hon

Its time for you to step up, buy health care insurance and FINALLY take responsibility for your own health care bills 

hon.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why do you cherry pick and ignore the things you can't answer?




please show me one significant thing I can answer or admit to being a low IQ liberal liar!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Then why does the US have the most expensive health care in the world.  If competition is driving your prices down, why does your health care cost 2 or three times as much as the rest of the world.  It's not that much better than the rest of the world.



For some reason, the US has been willing to settle for substandard health care while paying more than any other 1st world country. 

I've written about it before so won't go into great detail but the emergency care I got in Belgium was what we should be able to get here. I was able to see a specialist immediately (twice) got excellent treatment and paid a fraction of what it would have cost here to wait weeks to see a doctor.

Amazingly, the Obama haters are more than willing to pay outrageous costs for substandard care while subsidizing the congress' premiums for the very same coverage they want to deny us. 

WTF is up with that? 

Why do these fools want to keep this dysfunctional SOCIALIST system that was put in place by Reagan and forces us all to pay for the care of those who don't want to or cannot pay for their own care?

Why are the Obama haters against paying for their own care?  IMO, that question answers itself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Why do these fools want to keep this dysfunctional SOCIALIST system



Dear,  we always have to start in absolute kindergarten with you. Conservatives/libertarians hate socialism. So, they don't want to keep socialism. They want to switch to capitalism.

Got it now?????????????????????????????


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Feb 22, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Since the 80's doctors and other healthcare providers have been making less money and it shows when so many are in group practices instead of solo.



Its true that doctors and hospitals have consistently lost money under the Republican SOCIALIST system we currently have. As a result of EMTALA and those who don't pay their ills, our hospitals have had to close their trauma and burn centers. Even though we all pay more, we've been getting less and less. 

And, while the quality  of our health has suffered, we've been forced to subsidize the health care of our congresspeople. That would be the very same (REPUBLICANISM) congress-jerks who want to keep us from getting better care.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 22, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Its true that doctors and hospitals have consistently lost money under the Republican SOCIALIST system we currently have.



too stupid of course since Republicans didn't generally support the main pillars of the current liberal/socialist system: Medicare Medicare Schip and state health care regulation.

You may be the only human being on earth who does not know that!!


"At the time, conservatives strongly opposed Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America:
Ronald Reagan: &#8220;_f you don&#8217;t [stop Medicare] and I don&#8217;t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children&#8217;s children what it once was like in America when men were free.&#8221; [1961]
George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as &#8220;socialized medicine.&#8221; [1964]
Barry Goldwater: &#8220;Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.&#8221; [1964]
Bob Dole: In 1996, while running for the Presidency, Dole openly bragged that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. &#8220;I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn&#8217;t work in 1965.&#8221; [1965]_


----------



## rdean (Feb 22, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



If this wasn't so stupid and ill informed, I would comment on it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Feb 22, 2013)

rdean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



translation: as a typical liberal I'm too dumb to say why its stupid


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> ...



To not understand a principle which you've picked more for it's simplicity than applicability or relevance is only slightly worse than to be nieve, and to not understand all the relevant aspects of the world and what people want and do on a regular basis.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



typical liberal talking gibberish because he lacks IQ for substance


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



To not understand a simple principle is only slightly worse than to be completely nieve and not understand how the world works.

Though to be a troll, more or less, is worse than either, imo......


----------



## expatriate (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



This from the guy who claimed that sick people are a health insurance company's favorite customers!

Pot....meet kettle!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


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



personal attack becuase typical liberals lacks IQ for substance


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



"To not understand a simple principle is only slightly worse than to be completely nieve and not understand how the world works."

The above post is not quite deserving of a serious, direct response.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 8, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> The above post is not quite deserving of a serious, direct response.



This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
Uh, but monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
How does that work again?

Actually we have long had anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies. Sorry!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 8, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> pjnlsn said:
> 
> 
> > The above post is not quite deserving of a serious, direct response.
> ...




What I wrote was that not understanding a simple principle is only slightly worse than being completely naive as regards people.

In this case, naive refers to thinking that when a law is passed, what it intended to prevent suddenly becomes completely and utterly impossible, or that (suddenly) people will stop wanting the thing in question, a monopoly controlled by them?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 9, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


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


----------



## pjnlsn (Mar 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> PJNLSN: [capitalism does not work]  monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> How does that work again?
> 
> Edward: Actually we have long had anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies. Sorry!!!
> ...



Because your brain has difficulty processing written language, among other things? And again, ...



EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> ...






pjnlsn said:


> What I wrote was that not understanding a simple principle is only slightly worse than being completely naive as regards people.
> 
> In this case, naive refers to thinking that when a law is passed, what it intended to prevent suddenly becomes completely and utterly impossible, or that (suddenly) people will stop wanting the thing in question, a monopoly controlled by them?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

pjnlsn said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > PJNLSN: [capitalism does not work]  monopolies developed, cornered markets, controlled prices and gouged everyone.
> ...




Microsoft was judged to be a monopoly. But, it has very very low prices so everyone can afford to buy its products and very very high quality to discourage new competition. 

Monopoly is a non issue since capitalism takes care of it, and if not anti-monopoly laws do.

Capitalism is beauty and truth. As soon as China switched 20 million could suddenly buy cars rather than slowly starve to death under liberalism.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



So monopolies are taken care of by liberal anti monopoly laws.

Say it, say it lol.

Just messin with ya because u sprew out all that name callin.  

I hate it when we agree because your tone makes folks think you're an idiot and you must be wrong.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> So monopolies are taken care of by liberal anti monopoly laws.
> 
> Say it, say it lol.



there are millions and millions of capitalist businesses and almost no capitalist monopolies but there are a  huge number of government  monopolies that, oddly, a liberal doesn't worry much about, not even if they are the ones in China and Russia that slowly starved 120 million to death. In fact our liberals spied for Stalin


Anti-monopoly laws are probably not liberal or conservative. Sorry


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > So monopolies are taken care of by liberal anti monopoly laws.
> ...



Anti monopoly laws are big government saving our rears.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



too stupid!! As i said the monopolies are in very liberal countries and America if Obama gets single payer as he wants. Capitalism stops monopolies by it very nature which is competitive not monopolistic.

Anti-trust laws and policemen are small government protecting freedom and capitalism.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



While I agree with you anti monopoly laws are good, I question your view of them as small government. 

Never the less we agree!  Hey, who broke up AT&T/Ma Bell?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 10, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> While I agree with you anti monopoly laws are good, I question your view of them as small government.



dear, small governemnt protects freedom and capitalism, big government steals businesses, bankrupts them , and millions slowly starve to death


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 10, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > While I agree with you anti monopoly laws are good, I question your view of them as small government.
> ...



Well anyway.  The AT&T breakup started under Nixon/Ford, stretched through Carter and ended with Reagan1.  So all used their power from DC to break up that company.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Mar 10, 2013)

Wher in the world has this been shown to be the case?


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...




[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl_TD7yppBM[/ame]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



so then you agree capitalism would cut health care costs by 70%


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Nope, capitalism and the free market has made health care just a business based on profits. If you get a chance watch  the movie where Doctors are saying health care has changed since corp America got involved.  The medical and Pharma Industry is running the show , not the medical community . Their focus is to maximizing  profits not delivering health care.

To get a sense of how out of whack American health care costs are, we need only look to Canada, a society whose standard of living and culture are very similar to that of the United States. Per person, the U.S. spends almost double what Canada does on health care, yet American health outcomes, like life expectancy, rank lower. And opinion polls show Canadians by large majorities are generally satisfied with their health system.

A main reason is that half a century ago Canada implemented government-funded, pick-your-own-doctor Medicare for all, removing a lot of costly inefficiency -- and handsome profits -- from the system. And of course the "public option" to create a U.S. version of this was summarily taken off the table when Congress debated the 2009 health care reform, this was done with lobbying pressure from the Health insurance industry who's sole purpose to to maximize profits and keep control of the health care in the United States.

These Are The 36 Countries That Have Better Healthcare Systems Than The US

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1#ixzz2NGs18DLj


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> capitalism and the free market has made health care just a business based on profits.



I see I have to start in kindergarten with you. Firstly, there is no capitalism! 

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!

Finally, profit is beauty and truth: 2 guys make nails, 2 guys are doctors. One guy makes better nails and one guy is a better doctor. Therefore they get more customers and make more profit, and people get better nails and better health care.

Imagine a soviet like system where profit was illegal and everyone slowly starved to death becuase there was no incentive to do better.


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > capitalism and the free market has made health care just a business based on profits.
> ...




"I see I have to start in kindergarten with you. Firstly, there is no capitalism! "


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > capitalism and the free market has made health care just a business based on profits.
> ...



"Imagine a soviet like system" Time to drag out the soviet union Boogeyman talking points ?
So all other countries in the world are soviet like?   The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

Sure would be nice to have a rational discussion about our health care "system" without the soviet commie Boogeyman non sense you guys throw out.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Finally, profit is beauty and truth: 2 guys make nails, 2 guys are doctors. One guy makes better nails and one guy is a better doctor. Therefore they get more customers and make more profit, and people get better nails and better health care.
> 
> Imagine a soviet like system where profit was illegal and everyone slowly starved to death becuase there was no incentive to do better.



No one is advocating a system like Soviet Russia, Eddie.  No one ever has because this is the free world and communism failed.

What they're advocating is a mixed system like Canada's which allows doctors, labs, and clinics to operate for profit and independently, but they are not allowed to extra-bill over and above the government regulated prices for their services.  If they do a better job, they will get more customers and more business, but they cannot charge any more money for it.  Patients are free to pick and choose the best doctors and hospitals available to them, but the government funds the system.

This controls administration costs and removed the profit element from health care.  Also removed is the whole pre-approval process for testing and treatment, which eliminates a whole other level of costs which add to the expenses of administration, but do little to improve outcomes.

The US system is so expensive because your health insurance company is committed to reducing claims and increasing profits.  Now that insurance companies are required to pay out at lease 80% of premiums in health care, some of this pettiness may be reduced or eliminated since they have to refund premiums if they pay out less than 80%.  My best guess is they would rather refund premiums than pay out one nickel more than they have to.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> No one is advocating a system like Soviet Russia, Eddie.  No one ever has because this is the free world and communism failed.


 OMG!!!too stupid and 100% illiterate!!!!! Why do you think our liberals spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb!!! Why do you think OBama voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and supports single payer !

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


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The US system is so expensive because your health insurance company is committed to reducing claims and increasing profits.



100% illiterate as usual. Liberals made competition illegal between health insurance companies so of course there is no incentive to do better. 

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?

Don't you have a parent or teacher or husband who can explain these basic things to you??????????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> This controls administration costs and removed the profit element from health care.  .



but you said you were not a soviet libturd?? Do you want to remove the profit from all industries??? Yes or No????????????


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > This controls administration costs and removed the profit element from health care.  .
> ...



I'm sorry, I misspoke.  The profit element is removed from health care funding, not health care.  Health care in Canada is operated for profit (except municipally owned hospitals).  Funding of primary health care, is not for profit, nor should it be.

I don't want to remove profit from any industry.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



good girl, but you said its ok to remove the profit element from funding???

Profit is beauty and truth wherever it is found-right??


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> good girl, but you said its ok to remove the profit element from funding???
> 
> Profit is beauty and truth wherever it is found-right??



The profit in funding health care is leading to excessive administration costs, overly aggressive denial of claims, tying up time and resources, both at the doctor's end, and the patient's, increasing the doctor's operating costs in the bargain.  This is hardly your cost efficient free market model, Eddie.  It's why your country has the most expensive health care in the world.

Plus every insurance company has different billing codes, and different payment methods, which means that doctors have to hire third party billing companies just to bill the various insurance companies, further adding to the costs of administration.  The American system spends over 30 cents out of every health care dollar on administration, compared to under 10 cents in Canada.  

In Canada, there are one set of billing codes because there is only one payer.  All services on the government list have one code and one billing rate.  My doctor's receptionist does his billing, and that of the doctor he shares office space with.  There are no third party medical billing companies in Canada, removing an entire layer of administration costs.  There's no pre-approval of procedures or tests, speeding up the process.  Time that doctors don't spend on preapprovals and dealing with insurance companies, can be spent with more patients increasing their income.

One doctor who had a family practice in both countries said that he made more money in the US, in terms of the amount he billed, but billings and collections ate up so such big chunk of what he earned, and he had to write off unpaid fees every year.  In Canada, he earned less, but he got to keep more of it, and there were never collections problems or bad debt write-offs.  Because he didn't have to deal with insurance companies, fight for approvals, or worry about getting paid, his medical practice was much less stressful and he could focus better on patient care.

Everything you want from your free market health care - less administration, lower costs, better outcomes, is available in every single payer health care country in the world, and not available in the US, and yet you cling to the idea that the free market will do it cheaper.  

Will the conservative mind every admit that there are just some things that government can do better and cheaper?  So far, in face of overwhelming evidence that single payer is more efficient, cheaper and better, you continue to refuse to accept cold hard facts.

I guess the conservative IQ isn't quite up to accepting facts.


----------



## Zarius (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



EdwardA,what are you doing here?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The profit in funding health care is leading to excessive administration costs,



dear, I've explained to you exactly 8 times before that costs go up and and performance goes down becuase  liberals have made competition illegal. 

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?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dear, I've explained to you exactly 8 times before that costs go up and and performance goes down becuase  liberals have made competition illegal.



But Eddie, OUR costs are down and OUR performance is up.  Competition isn't illegal in Canada.  Doctors, labs, hospitals all compete for our business.  But I live in a large city and thus have multiple options, many of them world class research hospitals.

You keep making excuses for why your system consistently underperforms by blaming it on liberals and government interference, but the third party billing and the overly complex approvals processes are the inventions of the private insurance companies, not government.  The additional layer of administration known as third party billing exists in no other first world country, so if liberals have fucked it up in the US, how come they didn't fuck it up in Canada?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > dear, I've explained to you exactly 8 times before that costs go up and and performance goes down becuase  liberals have made competition illegal.
> ...



too stupid!! you are agreeing with me that Republican capitalist supply side competition works. 

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No, I'm not.  I'm saying a mix of government programs and free market capitalism is what works.  Allowing doctors, labs and clinics to run as independent freestanding businesses works well for cost efficiencies.  

Funding all of this with private insurance, does not - it adds to the costs of health care in ways that remove $$$ from the health care budget through a profit-driven need to contain claims.  Claims reviews adds another level of administration to the process, and in effect, has insurance companies dictating what tests and treatments people can have done, in an intrusive way.

Single payer health insurance gives doctors a list of treatments and services it funds, and the reimbursement rate, and doctors' decisions are not questioned by government.  There is no interference between the doctor and the patient in our system so my doctor is controlling my testing and treatment, not an insurance company.  Fraud is scrutinized by looking at billing patterns through computer analysis.

Most of our hospitals are government owned, and none are operated on a for-profit basis, although there are for-profit nursing homes, as well as government operated homes.  

This is a partnership of government and the free market - a mixture of capitalism and government programs.  This is the hallmark of successful societies - let government set up a framework for public interest infrastructure so that private businesses can work efficiently to deliver the services.  But regulation of a public interest sector of the economy, such as health care and education, is necessary in order that the greater good is served.

Leaving everything to the free market got you into this mess.  Refusing to acknowledge that government can do some things better than the free market, is what keeps you there.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> No, I'm not.  I'm saying a mix of government programs and free market capitalism is what works.



in all industries?????????? Why?????????


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not.  I'm saying a mix of government programs and free market capitalism is what works.
> ...



Stop being an asshole Eddie.  I know that's hard for you, but cut it out.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 11, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...




typical violent liberal ad hominem when liberal faces a simple question!!

What does that tell us about the character and IQ of liberals???

In the end liberalism is violence becuase they cant win based on logic. They have no option but violence


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> typical violent liberal ad hominem when liberal faces a simple question!!
> 
> What does that tell us about the character and IQ of liberals???
> 
> In the end liberalism is violence becuase they cant win based on logic. They have no option but violence



When ever you have nothing to refute the discussion, you resort to one of your circle jerk questions.  That's being an asshole, Eddie.  Calling you out on it is not violence.  But nice try.  

The fact that you try this whole "Gotcha" line of defense for your indefensible behaviour denotes you as someone who can't accept defeat so resorts to insults about IQ because you've been outsmarted.

Have a nice day Eddie.


----------



## Zarius (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not.  I'm saying a mix of government programs and free market capitalism is what works.
> ...



This is EdwardA, notorius city-data poster.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

typical violent liberal ad hominem when liberal faces a simple question!!

What does that tell us about the character and IQ of liberals???

In the end liberalism is violence becuase they cant win based on logic. They have no option but violence



Dragonlady said:


> When ever you have nothing to refute the discussion, you resort to one of your circle jerk questions.  That's being an asshole, Eddie.  Calling you out on it is not violence.  But nice try.
> 
> The fact that you try this whole "Gotcha" line of defense for your indefensible behaviour denotes you as someone who can't accept defeat so resorts to insults about IQ because you've been outsmarted.
> 
> ...




in all industries?????????? Why?????????
You must answer or admit you lack the IQ to do so


----------



## Zarius (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> typical violent liberal ad hominem when liberal faces a simple question!!
> 
> What does that tell us about the character and IQ of liberals???
> 
> ...



Look how he will not admit who he is. It is you EdwardA.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Zarius said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > typical violent liberal ad hominem when liberal faces a simple question!!
> ...



"I'm saying a mix of government programs and free market capitalism is what works"

so crony capitalist fascism works best in all industries or just health care?????????????? Why?? You must say or admit to lacking the IQ to do so.


----------



## Zarius (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Answer my question.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Zarius said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Zarius said:
> ...



what question????????????????????????????????


----------



## Zarius (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Zarius said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You are the infamous EdwardA!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Zarius said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Zarius said:
> ...



no. and who would care except a libturd without the IQ for substance?????


----------



## Antares (Mar 12, 2013)

seriously?

Its not about IQ it is about their basic philosophy.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Roo said:


> seriously?
> 
> Its not about IQ it is about their basic philosophy.



can you show a post that indicates an understanding of capitalism??? If you are a liberal can you show an understanding of how capitalism would cut health care costs by 70%????


----------



## Antares (Mar 12, 2013)

I am a Republican, but I can spot an asshole when I see him.

You act like a 12 year old kid.





EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > seriously?
> ...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Roo said:


> I am a Republican, but I can spot an asshole when I see him.
> 
> You act like a 12 year old kid.



this is called ad homenim. Its a sure sign that one lacks the IQ for substance and has low character. Sorry


----------



## Antares (Mar 12, 2013)

(smile) No...its an astute character observation of a small child that feels the need to beat his chest and pretend he is superior.

You aren't superior to anyone son..the fact that you must shout to all of the World that you are is quite telling.

The louder you shout has a direct correlation to the fact of your low self esteem...its called over compensating...I wouldn't be surpised at all to find out that you are quite small in stature too.




EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I am a Republican, but I can spot an asshole when I see him.
> ...


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 12, 2013)

Roo said:


> The louder you shout has a direct correlation to the fact of your low self esteem...its called over compensating...I wouldn't be surpised at all to find out that you are quite small in stature too.



Yes, I've questioned Eddie's obssession with IQ as well, and for many of the same reasons.  

Eddie gets very confused when facts are presented.  He only has one seriously questionable source for each of his opinions, which he posts endlessly, and goes ape shit when you refute his sources with multiple unquestionable sources, and resorts to circle jerk questions.

In any case, a lot of good solid information does get posted, and I hope that there are others like me who take the time to read the links others posted, however spurious the source.  When I read posts from Briebart and Heritage, it gives me an understanding of why those on the right think the way they do, and what average citizens need to do to counter an economic system which is fundamentally changing the world in ways that are not healthy for the peoples of the worlds' nations, and where inflicting economic pain and suffering on the poor and disenfranchised is highly profitable for the worlds' largest and richest corporations.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 12, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> When I read posts from Briebart and Heritage, it gives me an understanding .



Dear, our Founders were Republican capitalists 200 years ago?? Milton Friedman got famous in the 1960's. If you look to Brietbart and Heritage you only show your near perfect liberal illiteracy!! 


37)Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural 
Address, 1805.

"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association--the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -Thomas Jefferson

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth the labor (read-taxes) and bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government. -Thomas Jefferson

-


----------



## expatriate (Mar 12, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > When I read posts from Briebart and Heritage, it gives me an understanding .
> ...



Said the guy who fucked his slaves.... 

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



if you have proof of that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or runaway once again with your liberal tail between your legs.

In any case, Jefferson created freedom on earth for all, most recently ending the cold war and setting 2 billion free in China and Russia.

A liberal has contemp for the greatest man who ever lived? What does that tell us??


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Hi Ed: as a progressive Democrat and liberal Christian/Constitutionalist, I have analyzed this issue to death, almost literally.

I DO agree with you that solutions need to respect the concept of free will, free enterprise, and consent of the governed as the spirit of our civil liberties, which I align with liberal pro-choice advocacy as well as conservative and libertarian Constitutional principles.

the solutions to health care reform I see, which I believe will unify diverse party interests:
1. investing in medical education and service internships, in order to create more service provisions at more accessible sustainable levels, by integrating the public services through the medical schools and residency/internships
2. converting failed prisons, and especially capital punishment policies, into medical treatment facilities and schools for training in social, health and govt services.
3. charging restitution owed to taxpayers for either crimes, corruption, or fraud such as Veteran and social security/insurance benefits, and investing THAT into health services and education
4. creating jobs for lawyers and young law school graduates or student teams in
researching and negotiation settlements for govt and corporate abuses of public authority and resources, in order to fund and finance the above
5. if necessary, reforming the Fed by opening up the system to local investors to lend money against debts owed to the public, as assessed in #4, and issuing notes to invest and manage microloans into jobs and programs rebuilding communities on a sustainable basis, again by converting the waste of govt resources on failed prison, justice and mental health systems into cost-effective medical education and service/outreach programs.

I hope I count as an intelligent liberal thinker, who DOES get that we need to respect capitalist free enterprise and Constitutional liberties/free will while reforming the system.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> I hope I count as an intelligent liberal thinker, who DOES get that we need to respect capitalist free enterprise and Constitutional liberties/free will while reforming the system.



you seem dunderheaded for sure. If you are an intelligent liberal  (impossible of course) as you say then please present to us your single best liberal idea or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Dear Ed: I thought the DNA tests had been run to prove there was connection with Jefferson and [descendents from his slaves]? Wasn't this resolved?

If you have 10,000 to throw around, please do not give away as a one-time hand out.
please consider microlending into a sustainable program that will pay itself back,
where it can be invested in the next level of educational development.

I am proposing a plan for restitution to taxpayers, by investing resources into building a model campus for teaching poor Blacks, disabled Vets, church and nonprofit volunteers, and possibly recovering victims of crime, fraud, bullying or rape, etc. 
how to finance, own and manage rental property to break the cycle of poverty.

If you want to invest your money there, the point is for the program to succeed to pay back loans from investor and replicate other community programs based on this same model.

Freedmen's Town Historic Churches and Vet Housing

As a liberal Constitutionalist, I'm a real fan of Jefferson and believe he would have wanted some kind of sustainable program for education to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on govt.  You can see my whole collection of letters published in newspapers that I believe reflect and represent the spirit of Jefferson and the Founding Fathers.
http://www.houstonprogressive.org

And yes, I am a Democrat and considered either liberal/progressive because I am pro-choice and don't believe in abusing govt to impose religious or political biases.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Dear Ed: I thought the DNA tests had been run to prove there was connection with Jefferson and his descendents? Wasn't this resolved?



too stupid!!!Don't need tests to know Jefferson and descendents had DNA connection. Need tests to show Thomas Jefferson had DNA connection to Sally or her descendents. Tests did not show this, but liberals control the media it was pretended anyway so destruction of great founding icon and  America could continue.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I count as an intelligent liberal thinker, who DOES get that we need to respect capitalist free enterprise and Constitutional liberties/free will while reforming the system.
> ...



I think my favorite idea is to start paying back taxpayers by charging the wrongdoers for the debts and damages incurred by govt or corporate abuses of public resources and authority.

Because there is a time gap between settling the costs and responsibility, and actually collecting money and paying back taxpayers, that is where I recommend expanding the idea of independent currency, developed by the Green Party (in particular, Paul Glover founder of Ithaca HOURS Home Ithaca Hours - Local Currency - Ithaca, New York),
and issuing NOTES against the debts and damages PER case, and lending or borrowing capital from investors to BACK those notes until the wrongdoers pay back the account.
In the meantime, in order to secure these debts, the programs or properties that the restitution is sought to invest in restoring would be held as collateral for the loans.
So the investors who lend to govt, to pay for the corrections and developing sustainable education or service programs as the solution to the damages from past govt abuses,
would agree either to earn interest while the wrongdoers are paying back their debts,
or agree to accept ownership of shares in the collateral property/program if this isn't paid.

So instead of just Fed investors making money off lending to govt, any citizens or investors
could do so, and organize this per party, per issue or case of govt corrpuption or corporate abuses that need to be paid back to the taxpayers instead of charging us for those losses!

What do you think of this idea, Ed?
Did I go over your head?

I find some Greens, some Constitutionalists from either the far left or right can deal with this.
Some Tea Party, some Occupy people and Libertarians who "think outside the box" can
deal with this.

If you cannot, I expect you will continue to emotionally project onto me as
if it is MY fault that YOU cannot understand an insightful intelligent idea when you see it.

Not to worry, my own boyfriend does not see this either.
It is just too scary to him, so his biases get in the way and he can't see past those.

Not an issue of intelligence, but forgiveness.

If you cannot forgive liberals or whoever it is you have such an unhappy grudge against,
this will prevent you from appreciating good ideas that may come from liberal sources,
in this case, a combination of Green ideas mixed with restitution to taxpayers which is
a variation on reparations but applied to taxpayers who have suffered wrongs by govt etc.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> how to finance, own and manage rental property to break the cycle of poverty.



sounds too crazy for words for sure!! I have no idea why on earth that would be more useful than anything else. Why not train them to be doctors or restaurant workers or train conductors??? You clean forgot to say.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Dear Ed: I thought the DNA tests had been run to prove there was connection with Jefferson and *[descendents from his slaves]*? Wasn't this resolved?
> ...



That is what I mean, I thought this connection with Sally and slave descendants was established. No? If you are saying this was concocted by liberal media bias, I wouldn't be surprised. But that is what I heard had been established, that Jefferson did have children by his slaves. Sorry if this isn't correct after all.

I do know that JP Morgan Chase acknowledged it has benefited from mortgages and slave holdings passed down from parent or previous companies traced to slave holders. So their company did want to invest in restitution toward addressing disparity with Blacks, in their case, investing $5 million in education in Louisiana for example. At least they apologized.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Jefferson and believe he would have wanted some kind of sustainable program for education to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on govt.


dear Jefferson would not have let the cycle get started in the first place, and if it had, ended it by quickly withdrawing welfare as Clilnton did when he ended welfare as we know it. Its very simple.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > how to finance, own and manage rental property to break the cycle of poverty.
> ...



you can do that, too. there are plenty of programs that can do that already

the reason PROPERTY management is important is
not only financially but MENTALLY it liberates people
from the rental class mentality and pushes them into understanding OWNERSHIP

without this, we will never see equality

even if people don't own property or manage businesses themselves
they have to understand the difference in mentality

If they don't, then maybe they WILL have to become owners in order to understand
otherwise the victim mentality of blaming the management class will just go in circles!


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Jefferson and believe he would have wanted some kind of sustainable program for education to break the cycle of poverty and dependence on govt.
> ...



Dear Edward: the cycles were already in place in his day also.
slaves were bought and sold like assets that came with the property.
they were mortgaged through the banks like houses are still done today.
so "owners" could no more give away their slaves freely
any more than "homeowners" can give away their houses to help the poor.
we don't own this property while they are on loan, the banks do until these are paid off.

And welfare doesn't end by cutting off the supply from govt.

As long as people are not independent, they will become a drag on the system somewhere.

the areas where oppression occurs due to unequal knowledge of the laws
* spiritual laws of forgiveness and how this affects physical and mental health
and healing as well as relationships to prevent abuses
* knowledge of laws and govt including church-state politics
and especially mediating conflicts to prevent dependence on outside authority
* knowledge of financial and property management
again to prevent oppression by class and lack of equal access to resources and credit
for the purpose of investing and self-sustainable renewable income (not depending on charity or welfare handouts)
* access or training in technology and media in order to organize
social and financial resources to "equally distribute knowledge"
(instead of trying to redistribute the wealth or the resources gained by this knowledge)

How's that for an intelligent liberal?

If you need more proof that I have seriously thought this through on multiple levels,
I will keep going, until you say Uncle or fine where do I invest my 10,000 where
I will get it back and it will still make a difference. I can show you that also.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 13, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> the cycles were already in place in his day also.
> slaves



who's talking about slaves??????????? you were not!!!!





emilynghiem said:


> And welfare doesn't end by cutting off the supply from govt.



when Clinton ended welfare by requiring work 60% just disappeared. Sorry!!




emilynghiem said:


> How's that for an intelligent liberal?


 I asked why not train them to be Doctors train conductors or restaurant workers????????????? as opposed to landlords of all odd things!!!


----------



## expatriate (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...


Sally Hemmings ancestors have Jefferson DNA.  Sally was one of Jefferson's slaves.  Shall I send you my paypal account so you can pay me?  Last I knew, back in those days, there wasn't anything like artificial insemination, so his fucking her really is the only explanation.  I am surprised you hadn't heard of her.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > the cycles were already in place in his day also.
> ...



1. nothing wrong with requiring work 
I am just saying it is not enough to solve the whole problem!

just like requiring people to take a drug test before qualifying for govt benefits
(which I think just makes sense!) is still not enough to solve the problem
of why people are addicted to drugs and what it will take to get them off drugs.
Ed I thought you would understand this.
Just like Obama REQUIRING everyone pay for insurance isn't
solving the problems of people running up the costs of health care
either on the consumer side of bad habits or on the industry side of
insurance and pharmaceutical companies making profit without actually curing diseases.

2. and Edward there is a BIG difference between people learning to manage
property as a business owner/investor and just working for a company!! HUGE!!!!

The best way I heard it explained is that EVERY business
is a real estate deal, where you have to be making more money
than the cost of the property including taxes and maintenance.

So you would have to learn the business and tax laws to know how
to set up a property (whether it's commercial or real estate, etc.)
where you either make money off the deal at all times, and never lose money.

psychologically Ed, there is a big difference between people who own and manage
their own rental properties and other people who either rent, or just own houses
to live in where they lose money on the deal paying taxes and not writing off
depreciation because it is personal property as opposed to a business investment expense.

If you read the books like "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" and "Conspiracy of the Rich"
there is a whole difference in mentality between classes of people based on
property ownership and experience in this kind of business.

Even the Economist Hernando de Soto has pushed for reform to stop
the political disparity with migrant workers by HAVING THEM INVEST IN OWNING THE LAND where they work, which makes all the difference in the world.

as long as people are migrant, and depend on other people to rent from or work for,
they will not be "as equal" as people who own property and businesses and have standing in that way.

Our laws say that people are supposed to be equal,
but tenants are not equal to landlords,
workers and not equal to the company owners and managements, etc.
teachers and students are not equal to the school boards and administration.

It all boils down to who owns the property and has final say over the policies
on that site.  People need to learn this.  By either setting up your own school,
business, church or even incorporating a municipality, it makes a difference in
how much power you have in representing and defending your interests.

Gee whiz, Ed, I feel like the conservative lecturing a liberal!
Are you sure we are having this conversation?

You remind me of why people complain that liberals think govt legislation is going to fix everything, if you think Clinton's polices requiring work are enough to fix the problem.

I AGREE TOTALLY that people should not be punished but REWARDED for working,
I'm just saying that's not enough to fix everything and we need to do a lot more.
Changing the legislation is not enough. but it does push the burden onto the private sector which should take responsibility for education and services to make sure people are trained to work as productive citizens.

for people who commit crimes or abuses, I would go so far as to require that they work to pay the cost of the damages and debts incurred so this does not burden law-abiding taxpayers. And again, just passing ordinances or signing agreements is not enough to make that work; there needs to be access and assistance to programs that would help people both to correct the causes of their abusive, criminal or addicted behavior and to work to pay back restitution to victims and society affected by their crimes.

Ed for people who commit rape, robber or murder, where the damages could be assessed in the millions, the only way I see how an average joe could make millions in 5-10 years to pay back the victims of their crimes, frauds or corporate abuses is by working in teams to set up, manage and rent enough properties to make that much. So whether you teach people to retire as millionaires in 5 years for their own personal benefit financially or so people don't become a burden on the welfare tax rolls, or people who commit crimes and owe millions of dollars they don't have because they already spent the money;
the real estate models I have looked at make this possible, to make that much money in a relatively short period of time, whereas just working at a regular business does not.

I understand the problem with this idea is the people who KNOW how to manage real estate to make millions are NOT the ones committing crimes and filling up the prisons.
So that is why it would take working in teams, and having nonprofits or schools that DO work with people recovering from the cycles of poverty and crime, to have the volunteers
start learning how to pool resources together to invest in, finance and manage property,
and eventually over time teach the people they are mentoring and helping to learn also.

That is one area of educational outreach and economic reform I am promoting.
Besides financial/credit/property management training (onsite with real houses
and businesses so people of ALL class level can access this knowledge and experience)
the other areas are spiritual healing for reforming the criminal justice, mental health and prison systems, and legal mediation and conflict resolution for restorative justice which would change how we use our political, democratic and court system to redress grievances and invest in restitution instead of wasting resources in adversarial conflict.

Sorry if this goes over your head Ed.

I think I lost you over not clarifying the difference between
learning how to invest in real estate where you understand all
business transactions from rentals to business, government, etc.
as an issue of s*"sustainable income"* that covers all costs so there is only
increased profit to invest in growing more wealth vs. "profit and loss"
where you are doing good just to make more than you spend. Huge difference.
If we can get past that, we will have made some progress here!

Thanks, Ed
Still find it terribly ironic that if you are the conservative complaining about
liberals not understanding capitalism, then why am I the one explaining to you
the whole issue of class mentality based on business/property owners vs. workers/renters.

That is true irony.
I hope you see the humor in that!


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 13, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



That's what I thought. I thought I had read that this was established by DNA research.

Ed: if you need help to come up with 10,000 in expendable cash, the group that I know teaches the best way to do this uses real estate, taking advantage of how the credit system works and tax laws and writeoffs.  of course, they would probably advise you to invest your 10K in more property to make more money off your capital.  if I were the person who made the bet with you, I'd rather be paid by investing that money in buying property tax free for a nonprofit to become self-sustaining and to use the assets to support sustainable education, training, and services in areas that break the cycle of oppressive, crime, abuse and poverty. So not only are the programs an investment that will keep paying off, and liberating more resources currently being wasted by not solving problems, but the method of investing in nonprofits/educational programs would also change to a sustainable program of buying real estate tax free and developing that to produce revenue. Totally different from consuming handouts, or spending one's salary to cover costs and only saving the difference. To invest it in property that generates income on a renewable basis by passive revenue, so the time can be spent in other ways besides working the rest of your life and hoping to save enough for retirement.  More and more people who retire early as multi-millionaires do so by managing real estate investment; and again, on some level, EVERY business operation is a real estate transaction wehre the money coming in has to be greater than the overhead it costs to maintain that site.


----------



## poet (Mar 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



A moot and irrelevant point. We now have Obamacare. We need no other idea, too little...too late.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 13, 2013)

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

A reasonably reputable source.  But I imagine that Ed will tap dance, shuck and jive, and spin spin spin to avoid coughing up ten large.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello
> 
> A reasonably reputable source.  But I imagine that Ed will tap dance, shuck and jive, and spin spin spin to avoid coughing up ten large.



too stupid!! Are you saying this book or whatever it is a dispositive source that proves your theory as correct????


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

poet said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



dear, you clean forgot to say why we don't need another idea, especially one that would save the average American $5000??


----------



## poet (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Darling, I had no intention of offering you another idea, for you to capitalize on. Your claims are bogus until proven. When has anyone on the right given a good gahoot about the average American?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

poet said:


> Your claims are bogus until proven.



what claims??????? you forgot to say????????????



poet said:


> When has anyone on the right given a good gahoot about the average American?



Republicans support capitalism which has made the avergae American richer than average citizen from any other country. That wasn't so hard was it??


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello
> ...


You didn't even look at the link?  It's the definitive source for the history of Jefferson.  Of course you didn't...  

But don't worry Eddie, I certainly don't need your money and you clearly could not get by without it.

Next time though, don't let your big mouth write checks your ass can't cash.  Making stupid bets like this when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  I understand that you are not a native American, so I get it that you might be unaware of the well known details of the Jefferson-Hemmings relationship, but those of us who studied American history are well aware of those details, and do not look down on THAT relationship any more than we do the one between Thaddeus Stevens and Lydia Smith.  The two men were both great Americans and the color of their lovers' skins means nothing to most of us.... Certainly not me.


----------



## poet (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > Your claims are bogus until proven.
> ...



Americans, Democrat, Republican, and Independents support Capitalism, moron. You don't corner that market, and extol the glories thereof. What a rube.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

poet said:


> Americans, Democrat, Republican, and Independents support Capitalism, moron. You don't corner that market, and extol the glories thereof.



too stupid!! obviously if Demcocrats supported capitalism they would not support Obamacare.

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal will be dead slow?? Is any other explanation possible???


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



And only the sounds of crickets chirping, as Eddie slinks away breathing a sigh of relief that he didn't have to join the welcher's club along with Liability!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported  that the weight of all known evidence--from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data--indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records--Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808).

Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



The committee commissioned by the heritage society had WHAT qualifications with which to reach their different conclusions?

I KNEW you'd tap dance away from your foolhardy wager.  She went with Tom to Paris, for crissakes and he was present at Monticello where she was, or with her in Paris when her children were conceived.  And her kids have Jefferson DNA!  Baby brother Randolph becomes the scapegoat, does he?  Either way..a Jefferson boy was dipping into some dark meat.


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




Special Ed makes these stupid ass bets knowing full well he'll never have to pay up.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Exactly!  I wonder why he didn't make the bet for ten million instead of just 10K?


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...




That might make him look foolish.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



world you still like to make a legally binding bet that you have proof  Thomas Jefferson fathered children with Sally. Yes or No????


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Would I STILL like to make this bet?  I never proposed the bet in the first place.  What I can't understand is your abhorrence with the commonly acknowleged likelihood that Tom and Sally were longtime lovers.  I guess from your perspective, the author of the Declaration of Independence isn't diminished in your eyes one scintilla even though he owned human beings as property and kept them enslaved.  But suggest that he might have had real affection for one of his slaves and loved her and had children with her - and, I might add, freed all of those offspring of theirs to be freemen - and some how, THEN... THEN... 
Kwhen some suggests that Tom Jefferson, lily white Tom, may have had sex with one of those black People, and Ed goes into a total tizzy and wants to bet his inheritance to protect the honor of Thomas Jefferson and white men everywhere.  That's sort of a morally indefensible position you've staked out... But hey, if it gets you through the nit, go for it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Would I STILL like to make this bet?  I never proposed the bet in the first place.



you asserted Thomas had sex with Sally. I said I'd bet you $10,000 you don't have proof. You refused to take the bet so in effect you were smearing Jefferson as part of the treasonous liberal campaign to undemine America's founders and the country they created to make way for socialism. It figures liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin and gave Stalin the  bomb- right?? 



expatriate said:


> I guess from your perspective, the author of the Declaration of Independence isn't diminished in your eyes one scintilla even though he owned human beings as property and kept them enslaved.



you are a typical liberal 100% illiterate!! 

1)Jefferson wrote more about slavery than Taxes in the Declaration

2) Jefferson was born owning slaves manumission was illegal especially when you were in debt

3) Can you say what you would have done if born into a household owning slaves???? Think about it, and feel stupid and liberal.

4) despite that Jefferson created freedom on earth and literally freed 2 billion people, the latest in Russia and Red China as the cold war ended.

No humam being could be greater!!


----------



## Zarius (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Would I STILL like to make this bet?  I never proposed the bet in the first place.
> ...



You are EdwardA. You are hateful of Blacks. You are many low things.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Would I STILL like to make this bet?  I never proposed the bet in the first place.
> ...



So Tommy owning hot black chicks is perfectly OK with you, but the thought of him tappin' one of them just drives you CRAAAAAZY!!!!!

I got it.  You're an idiot. We're all done.  AMF.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 4) despite that Jefferson created freedom on earth and literally freed 2 billion people, the latest in Russia and Red China as the cold war ended.



People in China and Russia were not freed.  They were enslaved in the New World Order.  Conditions in Russia are worse than they were under communism, and the same with China.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 14, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > 4) despite that Jefferson created freedom on earth and literally freed 2 billion people, the latest in Russia and Red China as the cold war ended.
> ...



too stupid of course!!! 60 million slowly starved to death in liberal socialist China while capitalist Hong Kong just across the  border got rich thanks to Republican capitalism!

So China switched to capitalism and now instead of slowly starving to death 20 million a year can afford to buy cars!!

10% growth a year for 30 years is greatest economic miracle in human history. Stands to reason a liberal is too slow to know it!!


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> So China switched to capitalism and now instead of slowly starving to death 20 million a year can afford to buy cars!!
> 
> 10% growth a year for 30 years is greatest economic miracle in human history. Stands to reason a liberal is too slow to know it!!



No Eddie.  These so-called economic miracles have benefitted large multinational corporations, the elite of China and Russia, and left their workers unemployed, in desperate straits.  20 millions cars in China for a population of 1,344,130,000 - big whoop.  What about the other 1,324,130,000 people.  They don't have cars, or jobs, or food.  Suicides have more than doubled since 1998, and China now has one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

Americans used to say that the high rate of alcoholism in Russia was a sign of how bad it was to live under Communism, but under capitalism, that rate has tripled.  And thousands upon thousands of people have died because of the free markets reforms.

Unfettered capitalism is no more successful than communism.  Only the wealthy benefit.  That's not good for the country.  Only when capitalism is regulated so that workers cannot be exploited or abused, and a social safety net is in place, can capitalism raise the standard of living in a country.  Canada, most of the members of the EU, Scandanavia, all are mixed economies, and much stronger and healther than the US.


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Oprah had a show with the white and black descendants of Thomas Jefferson, so......


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > Americans, Democrat, Republican, and Independents support Capitalism, moron. You don't corner that market, and extol the glories thereof.
> ...



You're retarded. Obamacare is designed to insure a large portion of the population, who, otherwise, would be uninsured, at the expense of insurance companies, drug companies and providers who overcharge for their services and products, and thereby "reeling in" the vulgar and exorbitant costs which are actually breaking the system, which have the aforementioned industries, "lobbying their asses off", to the Parliament of Whores, that is Congress (especially, the Republican Congress). 
Find where liberals are opposed to Capitalism.


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



BS. Documentation? Evidence? Links? Sources?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> you asserted Thomas had sex with Sally. I said I'd bet you $10,000 you don't have proof. You refused to take the bet so in effect you were smearing Jefferson as part of the treasonous liberal campaign to undemine America's founders and the country they created to make way for socialism.



How does Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, which is well document, in any way smear Jefferson or undermine America's founders?  A lot of the founding fathers owned slaves and it was standard practice for slave owners to "pleasure" themselves with slave women.  That's why there were so many "light-skinned" slaves, which were favoured as house slaves in southern households.  Jefferson was a man of his time.

I think that knowing that Jefferson cared for a black woman, had children with her and freed those children, speaks very highly of Jefferson as a man and in no way undermines him.  

Only a racist would view this as a smear.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > you asserted Thomas had sex with Sally. I said I'd bet you $10,000 you don't have proof. You refused to take the bet so in effect you were smearing Jefferson as part of the treasonous liberal campaign to undemine America's founders and the country they created to make way for socialism.
> ...



Bravo Dragonlady!  My thoughts exactly!  Ed seems perfectly willing to excuse Tom's ownership of other humans, but balks at interracial romance.  Racist indeed!


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 15, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.



Yes, it helped keep African American families together, including those children who were fathered by their owner or his male family members, when they repeated raped their favourite female slaves.  And except when the master sold one or both of the parents and kept the kids.  But I digress.


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.
> ...



But, but, but . . .

It brought them here to America where they could bask in the wonders of republican capitalism.

(After they paid their dues, of course.)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> How does Thomas Jefferson's affair with Sally Hemmings, which is well document,



sadly dear if "well document" means, proven, you are wrong. If you have proof though I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal tail between your legs.  


]


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Thomas Sowell believes it anyway. He's only the worlds greatest expert on refugee movements. If the bird brain liberal disagrees with him  please say why or admit you lack the IQ to support your feelings and that you have no idea that feelings are different from thoughts.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



PLease tell us what the best thing was or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so. Isn't thinking fun??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.
> ...



yes you digress into more pure liberal illiteracy!! Nothing fractured black families more than liberalism.

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


We could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism"- Walter Williams PH.D

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.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



actually liberal fools make proud assertions that they think are correct because a liberal will lack the IQ to know the difference between a feeling and a thought.  I propose a legal bet for $10,000 that they can't support what they say or feel.

They always refuse to take the bet knowing in their hearts that they are illiterate feelers, not thinkers.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> They always refuse to take the bet knowing in their hearts that they are illiterate feelers, not thinkers.



Ed, that is one of the dumbest things you have ever posted, and that's saying a lot.  If we are not thinkers, how can we know anything?  If we are illiterate, how can we consistently write posts that point out the obvious logical fallacies in your borrowed ideas?

If you had an original thought, it would be lonely, Eddie.  Everything you post has been written by someone else.  No one takes your bets, not because they would lose, but because you won't ever admit you've lost and you won't pay up.  It's pointless.

The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel.  And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



the "bet" you propose is ridiculous.  Hemmings' offspring have Jefferson DNA.  Hemmings and Jefferson were known to have co-habitated and Jefferson freed all of her offspring from the bonds of slavery, yet did not do so for any other children of his slaves.  Everyone who has half a brain or more realizes that the children were his, and nobody I know of, except you, thinks there is anything wrong with it.  He is no less a great American for loving a woman of color.  I think his actions only accentuate his greatness.  Not you, obviously.  If  his fathering children with his slave-lover diminishes him in your eyes, that's YOUR problem, not mine.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Hemmings' offspring have Jefferson DNA.



and there were many Jeffersons of course.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel.



the illiterate liberal has a feeling which explains why she is so afraid to present her best example for the whole world to see. What does your fear tell you about the liberal character and IQ?


----------



## dblack (Mar 15, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel.  And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.



I sometimes wonder if he isn't a cleverly placed foil.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason anyone on the left responds to your posts, it because shooting you down is like shooting fish in a barrel.  And because through you, we are able to correct mis-information and outright lies which you repeatedly post.
> ...



yes, she says, like shooting fish in a barrel, I say, best example please, she disappears having had no idea she could be exposed so quickly for the brain dead libturd she is.


----------



## dblack (Mar 15, 2013)

All I can say is truth matters


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Well suppose no one bought the livers?
> ...



Nothing in the Affordable Care Act has thus far limited competition amongst insurance companies. The Insurance Marketplace doesnt even kick in till Oct 1, 2013.
The Marketplace will be available*plans "run by private companies.
When you shop at the Marketplace, everything you need is laid out for you. All your costs are stated up front, so youll get a clear picture of what youre paying and what youre getting before you make a choice."
About the Health Insurance Marketplace | HealthCare.gov

So far the Act removes the cap insurance companies could have on their payments, removes the pre-existing conditions language that insurance companies used to make sure only demonstrably healthy persons are insurable, and allows those up to 26 years old to have coverage under their parents' policies. Most American favor these changes.*

Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date, we can assume consumers are benefitting from competition in the insurance system and the effects of capitalism have lowered prices over time.*
(Competition even exists in the medicare arena. Dozens of booklets from insurance companies with Medicare contracts and Medicare supplements flood the mailbox.)
OMG! Despite competition and capitalism the price of insurance has *RISEN* over the last decade.

"From 1999 to 2009, Kaiser found that the insurance premiums had climbed 131% or 13.1% per year, and workers contribution toward paying that premium jumped 128% or 12.8% per year. In 1999, workers average contribution to the premium was $1543, and in 2009 it was $3515. For employers, their contribution was $4247 in 1999 and $9860 in 2009."

Health insurance costs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Mar 15, 2013)

Any laws that dictate coverage minimums/maximums limit competition.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date,



your liberal ignorance about education is exceeded only by your liberal ignorance about health care. Sorry.

Yes, nothing has been changed about competition to date, so that means competition is still illegal!!! If interestate competition is illegal then competition is illegal. Imagine if each state was its own toothpaste market and there was no national competition??? Live and learn, dear.

Please note that being a  liberal will subject you to countless crushing defeats.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> All I can say is truth matters



yes, certainly to conservatives anyway, but to liberals only feelings seem to matter. They lack the intelligence to subject their feelings to scrutiny so they must accept them and go with them. Hence, the carnage around here.


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > and what about insurance industry profit?
> ...



The capitalist, competitive system has not lowered insurance co. profits.
The insurance industry's (AHIP)  "own chart of this data shows that the share of the health care economy sucked up by health insurance profits has more than tripled over the past decade." 

Ethan Rome: The Truth About Health Insurance Company Profits: They're Excessive

Your comment about insurance companies wanting customers with pre- existing conditions and chronic diseases is the MOST laughably stupid remark ever posted.

Let's make this very simple:

An insurance company gets $15,000 in premiums from a customer. Customer A has no diseases or health issues. The insurance co. pays out $500 a year for customer A's checkups.

Customer B has cancer. Currently he sees his oncologist every two weeks for extensive bloods tests and lab work and he has CT scans every three months for $3000 each.

Currently, he is being treated with 2 medicines; one costs $5000 a month and 
one costs $8000 a month. Medicines like these might keep Customer B alive for five years or more.  The insurance company
 pays out several hundreds of thousands of dollars each Year for customer B.

Now do you really think the insurance co would reject customer A because he does NOT NEED much health care? 
Do you really believe the insurance company will choose customer B because he NEEDS such expensive medical care?

I really hope you can understand why your comment was so totally ridiculous it indicates nothing you say is likely to have any validity. I hope you understand why Obamacare had to make it ILLEGAL for insurance companies to continue their 
longstanding practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> The capitalist, competitive system has not lowered insurance co. profits.



dear, you are not being a good reader are you?? Libturds made competition illegal in health care insurance so there is no capitalist competitive system!

Do you need to write that 100 times before it sinks into the very very slow liberal brain????????????


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Annika55 said:
> 
> 
> > Since absolutely nothing about competition has been changed to date,
> ...



Competition may be limited, but there are still enough insurance companies competing to maintain the free market rules.

I think I showed everything you wrote on the education thread was completely ignorant or simply lies. I posted recent test data from tests YOU praised to show that your comments were really stupid, comments like "The Soviet Union produces the dumbest students in the world" while you simultaneously posted "The US produces the dumbest students in the world." Can you see the problem with your 2 posts (in addition to the fact that their actual scores on the test YOU presented as an excellent measure completely dubunks the accuracy of your posts. 

Yes sir, you called me stupid and liberal so there is no doubt your intellectual superiority won that debate.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> Competition may be limited, but there are still enough insurance companies competing to maintain the free market rules.



Dear, please don't be stupid on purpose. Show some character and intelligence. When you lose you lose! Grow up!! If libturds created 50 markets for toothpaste instead of allowing one national market the price of toothpaste would go up 10 times and we'd all have a soviet  standard of living.

Still over your head??

A brainwashed libturd has been programmed to attack capitalism but when the libturd cant find capitalism she creates a strawman to fullfill her prime directive !! Got it now?????????


----------



## expatriate (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Hemmings' offspring have Jefferson DNA.
> ...



how many of them co-habitated with Sally Hemmings in Paris?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



house slaves cohabitated, so what???


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Annika55 said:
> ...





There are health insurance companies competing in all states. It looks like there are more choices in insurance companies than choices in major grocery store chains.
Here are some random state options.*

Individual and Family Health Insurance Companies in Michigan

AARP-branded plans, insured by Aetna
Aetna
Blue Care Network
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
Celtic Insurance*
Health Alliance Plan
HealthPlus Insurance Company
Humana
IHC Group
Priority Health
UnitedHealthOne

Short Term Insurance Providers in Michigan
Assurant Health
HCC Life Insurance Company
Health Alliance Plan
IHC Group

Health Insurance Providers in Florida
HEALTH INSURERS IN FLORIDA
These companies offer individual and family plans.
Aetna
AvMed Health Plans
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida
BlueOptions
Celtic Insurance Company
Connecticut General Life Insurance
Coventry Health and Life
Coventry Health Plan of Florida
Florida Health Care Plans
Humana

HEALTH INSURERS IN OHIO
These companies offer individual and family plans.
Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
AultCare Insurance
Celtic Insurance Company
Coventry Health and Life
Health Plan of the Upper Ohio Valley
Humana
Kaiser Permanente
Medical Mutual of Ohio
Summa Insurance

Individual and Family Health Insurance Companies in Pennsylvania
AARP-branded plans, insured by Aetna
Aetna
Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania through its subsidiary First Priority Life Insurance Company
Capital Blue Cross
Geisinger Choice
HealthAmerica
Independence Blue Cross
UnitedHealthOne
Short Term Insurance Providers in Pennsylvania
Assurant Health
HCC Life Insurance Company
HII Underwritten by Companion Life
Health Insurance Innovations
IHC Group
UnitedHealthOne


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> Annika55 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



AMA: 70 Percent Of U.S. Lacks Health Insurance Competition - Forbes
Nov 28, 2012 ... A new report says 70 percent of the commercial insurance markets are highly 
concentrated." The American Medical Association, which paid for ...
AMA: 70 Percent Of U.S. Lacks Health Insurance Competition - Forbes


----------



## expatriate (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



she got pregnant with one of his DNA-laden children while IN Paris.


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



Insurance companies know that healthy people are aware they might get sick. That is why people who can afford it, even when young and disease-free, buy health insurance. As long as people get sick, insurance companies will be around. Of course, the insurance company hopes it will never have to pay a penny on the healthy person's gamble.
On the other hand, health insurance companies would not choose to insure persons whom they recognize have medical conditions that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly, far more than the most expensive premiums.

Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind
Pre-Existing Conditions Affect Millions of Americans
A large proportion of Americans have health conditions that insurance companies can qualify as pre-existing conditions.
A pre-existing condition is a medical condition that existed before someone applies for or enrolls in a new health insurance policy. It can be something as prevalent as heart disease  which affects one in three adults1  or something as life-changing as cancer, which affects 11 million Americans.2
But a pre-existing condition does not have to be a serious disease like cancer or heart disease. Even relatively minor conditions like hay fever, asthma, or previous sports injuries can trigger high premiums or denials of coverage.3
Unattainable Health Coverage
Insurance discrimination based on pre-existing conditions makes adequate health insurance unavailable to millions of Americans.
In 45 states across the country, insurance companies can discriminate against people based on their pre-existing conditions when they try to purchase health insurance directly from insurance companies in the individual insurance market.4 Insurers can deny them coverage, charge higher premiums, and/or refuse to cover that particular medical condition.
A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults5  36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market  were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.6
In another survey, one in 10 people with cancer said they could not obtain health coverage, and six percent said they lost their coverage, because of being diagnosed with the disease.7
It is still legal in nine states for insurers to reject applicants who are survivors of domestic violence, citing the history of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition.8
Even when offering coverage, insurers can exclude whole categories of illnesses related to a pre-existing condition. For example, someone with a pre-existing condition of hay fever could have any respiratory system disease  such as bronchitis or pneumonia  excluded from coverage.9
Losing Coverage When You Need It Most
Thousands of Americans also lose health insurance each year through a practice called rescission.
When a person is diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer, some insurance companies review his/her initial health status questionnaire. In most states individual insurance market, insurance companies can retroactively cancel the entire policy if any condition was missed  even if the medical condition is unrelated, and even if the person was not aware of the condition at the time. Coverage can also be revoked for all members of a family, even if only one family member failed to disclose a medical condition.10
A recent Congressional investigation into this practice found nearly 20,000 rescissions from three large insurers over five years, saving them $300 million in medical claims11  $300 million that instead had to come out of the pockets of people who thought they were insured, or became bad debt for health care providers.
At least one insurance company has been found to evaluate employee performance based in part on the amount of money an employee saved the company through rescissions.12 Simply put, these insurance company employees are encouraged to revoke sick peoples health coverage.
The Need for a Solution
High-risk pools, which have been used by states to cover the medically uninsurable, do not work.
Thirty-five states offer a high-risk pool for people who have been denied coverage in the individual insurance market or otherwise cannot obtain insurance.13 However, high-risk pools generally charge significantly higher rates than they charge for a healthy individual in the individual insurance market,14 meaning that only relatively high-income people can afford the coverage. One study estimated that only eight percent of the uninsurable population is able to enroll in high-risk pools, mainly because of high premiums.15
Benefits through a high-risk pool are also not guaranteed. Some state high-risk pools have annual caps on enrollment, or limit eligibility only to people who had prior group health coverage in the preceding 63 days. And one state high-risk pool has been closed to new beneficiaries since 1991.16
All high-risk pools also impose pre-existing condition exclusions for six months to one year, during which time care for the very condition that made someone uninsurable is not covered.17
Health Insurance Reform Will Provide Stability and Security for All Americans
Under health insurance reform, insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing coverage because of someones medical history or health risk.
Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies will not be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
And insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who are or become ill.
Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Apparently, they are not alone in that:
CPAC Participant Defends Slavery At Minority Outreach Panel: It Gave 'Food And Shelter' To Blacks | ThinkProgress


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Thomas Sowell is a poster child "Stephin Fetchit Negro".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 15, 2013)

poet said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



Can you say why you disagree with Sowell or must you admit, as a typical liberal, that  you lack the IQ to do so and  thus are reduced to calling names like a child!


----------



## poet (Mar 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



He's a black conservative....isn't that enough? It's incongruous with conventional wisdom. 
You are always wont for others to explain themselves, but lack the ability of clarity and conscience when it comes to your outrageous claims and positions. And since my IQ is of no consequence, it being above the average for Caucasians, any discussion of it is off limits to you. 
And never ask of others that which you are unable or unwilling to give yourself: 

"See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??".....such as this trite "namecalling" you did.


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 15, 2013)

Quote: Originally Posted by expatriate*
He really is trollishly nonsensical at times... like he really KNOWS how completely off-kilter his "theories" are, yet he continues to present them as if they were perfectly reasonable.

Edward answered:
so why do they sell Life insurance to those 80+????? Why would there be no profit?????? Is there no profit on a Rolls Royce????

See why we have to be 100% certaion a liberal will be slow, to slow to understand the basics of capitalism.

Edward,

An insurance company will sell a 20 year old a life insurance policy at a very low rate. They assume they will be collecting premiums and not paying a cent for 60 years. Most likely, premiums will continue to rise over the insured man's lifetime. Health exams may be required after age 40 and at some point, renewal may not be possible. This is how insurance companies make money.

A life insurance company knows the odds are that it will be paying out on an 80 year old man within 5 or so years (depending on current life expectancy data). If the 80 year old chooses a $50,000 death benefit, the insurance company would have to charge an annual premium of OVER $10,000 a year to make a profit. If the 80 year old only survives a year or two, the company will lose money on the payout.
And that is why insurance companies do not choose to insure 80 years olds unless the premium is astronomical.


----------



## Annika55 (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Then why does the US have the most expensive health care in the world. If competition is driving your prices down, why does your health care cost 2 or three times as much as the rest of the world.  It's not that much better than the rest of the world.
> ...



You are wrong about competition. I have pointed out that in most states consumers can choose from hundreds of insurance plans offered by 7 to 10 companies. Even when you are eligible for Medicare, there are numerous medicare advantage and supplemental plans. Insurance brochures flooded my mailbox.
It is also necessary to recognize that the majority of Americans have health insurance through their employers. Many large companies with many employees should have the clout to negotiate for the best prices since there are, in fact, plenty of companies to choose from (8 to 10 in most states). Despite the competition, as I posted, health care costs continue to rise.


----------



## dblack (Mar 16, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



It's not the number of providers or plans that provides meaningful competition. It's how much they vary in what they offer. And that's where the new regulations squelch competition. If all insurance companies are bound to the same minimum coverage requirements, their minimum coverage plans are all going to be pretty much the same. There are other ways they can compete, but given that the current model of group insurance has proven to be such a fantastic failure, the kind of competition we need the most is innovation around different approaches.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> And that is why insurance companies do not choose to insure 80 years olds unless the premium is astronomical.



dear, If I disagreed I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??? or run away with your  strawman between your legs once again!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow???


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

Annika55 said:


> You are wrong about competition.



too stupid!!how can it be competitive if liberals made competition illegal????????????????????

 AMA: 70 Percent Of U.S. Lacks Health Insurance Competition - Forbes
Nov 28, 2012 ... A new report says 70 percent of the commercial insurance markets are highly 
concentrated." The American Medical Association, which paid for ...
AMA: 70 Percent Of U.S. Lacks Health Insurance Competition - Forbes


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

poet said:


> He's a black conservative....isn't that enough? It's incongruous with conventional wisdom.



too completely stupid and 1000% liberal!!! Conventional wisdom put the earth at the center of the universe for 10,000 years and assumed blacks and others were born to be slaves. 

As a liberal you are far too stupid to say why you disagree with Sowell's scholarship but your Nazi-like brainwashing makes you assume Sowell is mistaken!! Its very pathetic. Sorry


----------



## poet (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > He's a black conservative....isn't that enough? It's incongruous with conventional wisdom.
> ...



Whatever you say....as you know everything. LMAO.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

poet said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > poet said:
> ...



not everything but more than a perfectly illiterate bigot  who would smear a man based on the color of his skin and not one single thing more!!!


----------



## poet (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Bitch, stop lying on me. I did no such thing, mainly because I was taught that color is unimportant, and that only hearts and minds matter. You stupid lying bitch. Illiterate? I could out-think you on my worst day, and send you crying to the dictionary.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

poet said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > poet said:
> ...



Dear, you judged a man based on the color of his skin. I'd say that makes you a bigot!! Liberals do it all the time. They assume any black man who thinks for himself is defective.

We live a  Christian world though so it is possible you could be forgiven. I can arrange it actually. If you read Sowell's book and report back to us any significant errors you find relative to our subject I'll see to it. Deal??


----------



## poet (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Fuck that. I'm so sick and tired of you people claiming that only black conservatives can "think for themselves", by way of professing a conservative philosophy. It don't work like that, to your chagrin.  If a black supports, adheres to, or endorses the racist Republican platform, then he is a race traitor, a Stephin Fetchit Negro, a plantation mentality that would allow Massa to discriminate against him or her, while he or she panders and clamors for the crumbs falling from Massa's table. I said it. I'm here to represent it. 
I don't judge folks on the basis of skin color, for the umpteenth time. I define me, bitch...you have no dog in that race. 
And we live in a world, actually, of many faiths, beliefs and religions, which you want to ignore, and diminish, evidently not understanding the precept of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which you claim to revere and know backwards and forwards. I categorically and summarily dismiss Thomas Sowell, his writings and teachings, because I can. Report back to you? LMAO. Lincoln freed the slaves....some didn't get the memo.


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...




Notice the counties with Socialized Medicine and the costs vrs capitalist healthcare


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 16, 2013)

poet said:


> I categorically and summarily dismiss Thomas Sowell,



that makes you a bigot and an illiterate since you have not read him!!
Are you proud of yourself??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 20, 2013)

t_polkow said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



sorry but Medicare Medicaid VA Schip and Tricare are not example of capitalism.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## expatriate (Mar 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> t_polkow said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



the fact that we have some government funded healthcare programs does not change the fact that our total system is overwhelmingly driven by capitalist profit motives.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 20, 2013)

and Ed... are you still sticking with your previous position that sick people are health insurance companies' favorite customers?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?



Eddie, it is you that's slow.  Too slow to see that you pay twice as much as I do for my health care.  To slow to see that 100's of insurance companies all having actuaries, underwriters and claims staff for each of them, is driving up the cost of US healthcare.

Any dollars not spent on doctors, nurses, and hospitals, is money wasted.  US healthcare is the most ineffecient, administration heavy, health care system in the world, because private health insurance spends a lot of money trying to limit what they pay out.  Single payer is cheaper and the quality of care received, overall, is better.

In the US, only the rich and the insured get good health care.  The standard of care given to those without insurance, is a public embarassment.


----------



## rdean (Mar 20, 2013)




----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > I categorically and summarily dismiss Thomas Sowell,
> ...



No it makes YOU a biggot because the only black man you don't think is stupid is Sowell.  Any black who votes it his own best interest is stupid.  Any black man who doesn't think Obama is a socialist is stupid.  Any liberal is stupid.  Anyone who doesn't think like you is stupid.

You don't understand even the basics of economics.  You go on about wealth in America - how wealthy are you Eddie?  How much money did you - so much cleverer than us dumb liberals, manage to salt away Eddie?  Or are you one of the 47% you and your kind like to revile.

How much government money do you take Eddie?


----------



## poet (Mar 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > I categorically and summarily dismiss Thomas Sowell,
> ...



How do you know what I've read? I actually have read him, and disagree with 99.9 % he espouses. Illiterate? Based on what? Whether I've read Sowell or not? You're an idiot. 
He's a Stephin Fetchit Negro, reduced to "carrying water", for racist, conservative whites.


----------



## Grandma (Mar 21, 2013)

Eddie, we spent decades doing it the capitalist way. Patients became homeless and insurance company CEOs became multimillionaires.

Your way has failed.


----------



## editec (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



You know I a\often wonder what the state of HC in this nation would be like if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.

I suspect, just as you do, that:

1.  the cost of HC would be much MUCH more in line with what people could pay out of pocket. (and that HC providers wouldn't be so wealthy); and

2. The state of the art of HC would be far less advanced than it currently is.

In my lifetime this nation has gone from spending 4% of the GDP on health care to over 18%.

So much wealth going into HC research and treatment gave us very advanced medicine that a;most nobody can afford except through socialized (either private or public ) insurance schemes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

editec said:


> if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.



1) a government or soviet monopoly of course will be very very inefficient and expensive. A private capitalist competitive insurance system would be the exact opposite. 





editec said:


> 2. The state of the art of HC would be far less advanced than it currently is.



why would you say that? A better product is always the best way to leap frog your competition! Cars computers phones etc etc all got much much better thanks to capitalism, the greatest life saving force in human history by 100000%


----------



## Underhill (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.
> ...



Capitalism is great as building a million widgets cheap and selling them for a profit.   

Where they suck is caring for people.   They only care about the profit motive.   So yes, a purely capitalistic system would be the most cost effective.   But if you think care would be better, you are deluding yourself.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Where they suck is caring for people.  They only care about the profit motive.



of course that is very very very stupid and profoundly so !! If you want a good car you only buy a good car and the bad car companies go out of business, if you want good care you only buy good care and  those who don't provide good care go out of business!

Capitalism is the best way to improve the quality of caring at the fastest possible rate!! A government system provides no competition and no incentive to care and improve each day.

As a liberal you'll find that over your brainwashed head.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.
> ...



Prior to Lyndon Johnson signing the Medicare Act of 1965, that is what the US had - a completely capitalistic health care system with private insurance only, and it was a problem because half of Americans couldn't afford private health insurance.

The capitalistic system you long for was tried for 200 years and it was an epic FAIL, Eddie.  By 1965, half of all Americans could not afford private health insurance.  So much for your "free market competition would lower prices".  One quarter of the money Americans pay for US health care goes to pay for insurance company staff whose job it is to refuse or limit their claims.

Only someone too dumb to be one person defends the capitalistic US health care system as having the ability to provide quality health care at a cost comparable to or lower than a single payer system.  In fact, the intelligent argument that conservatives use is that there are not enough doctors and hospitals to handle the increase in the number of patients if 100% of Americans have full access to the system, and that waiting listing will abound when universal health care comes in.

Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper.  And you, Eddie are that idiot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper.



so would you recommend that China switch back to a liberal socialist system in which 60 million slowly starved to death??

See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper.
> ...



This is why we consider you a total idiot Eddie.  Your data on China is false.  60 million people were not starving to death.  In fact, more people are starving now wages have dropped, all social programs in China have been cancelled and price controls are gone.

Republicans lie to you because they want to do the same thing to the US.  You won't have earrned income credits then Eddie.  On a positive note, you won't have internet so we'll be spared your useless diatribes.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> In fact, more people are starving now wages have dropped, all social programs in China have been cancelled and price controls are gone.




if you have evidence of this I will pay you $10,000. Bet or admit to being a psycho nut job liberal!!!

 In 2006, there were 236,000 dollar millionaires, known as dakuan, in China, in 2005 and more than 250,000 in 2006, compared with 2.7 million in the United States. China now has the sixth largest population of millionaires in the world, far more than in India and Russia combined, and the number is growing at a rate of 15 percent a year.

 By one estimate around six or seven million Chinese, about 5 percent of the population, have assets of $100,000. This is considered rich by Chinese standards. As of 2004, there were an estimated 10,000 Chinese with assets over $10 million. As of 2007, the richest 800 people in China had an average net worth of $562 million.

A total of 3.39 million vehicles were sold in the country in January and February, rising 14.7% from the same period last year, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) said in a statement.

Summary 
The automobile industry, a key sector in China&#8217;s industrialization and modernization efforts, has 
been developing rapidly since the 1990s. In recent years, China has become the world&#8217;s fastest 
growing automotive producer. Annual vehicle output has increased from less than 2 million 
vehicles in the late 1990s to 9.5 million in 2008.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 21, 2013)

The wealth of a nation is not counted by how many millionaires there are, but by how well the common people live.  By your standard, the oil based economies of the Middle East are the most successful in the world because of the ratio of multi-billionaires to the number of citizens.

It's the standard of living that counts, not the money controlled by a few.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The wealth of a nation is not counted by how many millionaires there are,



if I said it was I'll give you $10,000. Bet? or admit to being a liberal fool


----------



## expatriate (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > The wealth of a nation is not counted by how many millionaires there are,
> ...



Ed... you really don't have 10 grand to toss around... stop these stupid bets of yours.  Nobody ever pays up even if they lose.  Heck... I bet warrior102 10K that I was a retired naval officer, and I even posted a youtube video of me and my retired ID card... the douchebag STILL never paid up.  And you would be will served to tone down your insults.  Calling liberals idiots all the time just makes you sound like, well, an idiot.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Mr Natural (Mar 21, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



And that's why we call him Special Ed.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Its easy to prove. If liberals are not idiots please find one who can say something substantive in support of liberalism? Thanks


----------



## expatriate (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



liberalism is responsible for all the major improvements to American society for the last century:  women's suffrage, civil rights, child labor laws, minimum wage, social security, workplace safety, union rights, environmental protection.  liberalism has moved the entire political conversation steadily to the left so that now, ideas and programs that were once considered on the far loony left, are now middle of the mainstream.  A classic example is the sign at a 2010 tea party rally:  "keep your socialist hands off my medicare!"


----------



## uscitizen (Mar 21, 2013)

Decrease costs by 1000%  that means that the HC outfits would pay me 9 times what I now pay them?
Decreasing costs by 100% makes it free.

This liberal understands percentages.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 21, 2013)

expatriate said:


> liberalism is responsible for all the major improvements to American society for the last century: womens sufferage



now that's an interesting and very very major improvement????? Sadly,  it started way back with Abigail Adams I'm afraid.


Interesting that you go to pure trivia and ignore major wars, 10's of millions of dead people,   major depressions and recessions, and the near genocide against American blacks.

See why we are 1000% sure a liberal will be slow


----------



## rdean (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, more people are starving now wages have dropped, all social programs in China have been cancelled and price controls are gone.
> ...



And they are building a million robots to take over jobs where people were getting paid $170 a month.  Didn't take them long to act like the Republican leadership and squat shit on their base.  But it's OK.  In America, the Republican base loves it.  They want to be poor and unqualified to do anything but pick fruit.  Only they are too lazy, old and fat to pick fruit.  Besides, they feel that's work minorities should be doing, not them.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > liberalism is responsible for all the major improvements to American society for the last century: womens sufferage
> ...


j

Three quick points:

1.  Abigail Adams did not have the right to vote. Nor did her daughters, grand-daughters, or great grand-daughters.  It took the force of 20th century liberalism to secure those rights for women.

2.  Pretty shameless of you to  lump the other monumental achievements of American liberalism as pure trivia.  Seems like a pretty clear cop out to me, but certainly something I was expecting from you.

3.  As to the points you claim I ignored, you asked for anything that liberalism had accomplished, and I gave you a long list.  I think that YOU - quite typically, and intentionally - confuse liberalism with the democratic party, which is an intellectually bankrupt tactic.


----------



## rdean (Mar 22, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



Besides, historically, you can't really judge the Republican or the Democratic party's because in the middle 60's, conservatives fled the Democratic Party swelling the ranks of the Republican party.   Blacks became Democrats.  Today's Republican party is 90% white and has ZERO liberals.  And only a piddling of minorities.  Take that tiny left over part of the Republican Party and divide it up among blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Hindu's, gays and so on and it's a small slice indeed.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 22, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > Where they suck is caring for people.  They only care about the profit motive.
> ...



What you are talking about works for a car.   It doesn't for the health care.   Here is why.    

Most of us do not pick the best doctor.   You pick what is available.   If you are lucky you find one that is taking new patients.    It's not as simple as picking the best insurer.    You get what your company offers.    Most of us don't have 15 hospitals to choose from, we go to the local hospital.   

Health care is not like a car lot where you can walk in and choose the car model, brand and type you want.    Most of us get what is available to us.   Most of us wouldn't know the difference even if we could.   How do you determine the best surgeon?  Bed side manor?   Doesn't tell you a whole lot.   How about the best hospital?   Unless you are among the elderly, you don't spend enough time there to know which is best.   People don't generally shop around for the best hospital.

The industry knows this.  That is why they do not have to offer competitive rates.   This is why cost keep going up even though the vast majority of the system is still privately owned and run.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



Your post, indeed, most of the discussion of health care reform, is based on the premise that the standard model of group insurance is the only way to pay for health care. And that's our biggest mistake.


----------



## editec (Mar 22, 2013)

HC insurance companies have NO REASON to want the cost of HC to go down.

Their right in increase rates is typically based on COSTS & a SET profit based on costs.

Ergo, when the cost of HC goes up?

They make MORE money.

_GET IT?_


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

editec said:


> HC insurance companies have NO REASON to want the cost of HC to go down.
> 
> Their right in increase rates is typically based on COSTS & a SET profit based on costs.
> 
> ...



!!!!!

Exactly. Health care inflation only reinforces their sales pitch. It promotes the delusion that we can't afford health care without the insurance companies. Which is bullshit. They are middle men bleeding money from every health care transaction they are a part of. The less we use insurance the better. Health care prices won't come down until we get that through our heads.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


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



Okay, then what is your alternative?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 22, 2013)

editec said:


> HC insurance companies have NO REASON to want the cost of HC to go down.
> 
> Their right in increase rates is typically based on COSTS & a SET profit based on costs.
> 
> ...



Which is why we need to get rid of the insurance companies completely and go to single payer.    Eliminate mountains of paperwork and the profit motive in one swoop.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > HC insurance companies have NO REASON to want the cost of HC to go down.
> ...



Single payer is still insurance, with all the distorted incentives and inefficiencies that model entails. It just removes _all_ choice and competition and creates one insurance company - whether it's run by government or not is irrelevant.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 22, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Right, except it removes the cost of having hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of secretaries to process claims from dozens of insurers as well as medicaid, medicare and social security.

It also gives us control of cost directly.   

It removes profit from the equation.   This alone means a 15-20% savings (depending on the state).   

But yes, the government can be inefficient.    Just like large corporations.   This is why I do not claim we should start a completely new system.    We simply need to look at what has been done in the rest of the world, where cost are lower and care is as good, or better, and emulate them.  

The alternative is what?    Those of you who keep calling for a capitalistic approach...  I'm waiting to hear exactly what the alternative is.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



The alternative is to mind your own business. There's no need to use the coercive power of the state to force your neighbors into _your_ idea of the best health care solution. Freedom isn't such a bad deal.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 22, 2013)

Underhill said:


> The alternative is what?    Those of you who keep calling for a capitalistic approach...  I'm waiting to hear exactly what the alternative is.



alternative is capitalism. Customers shopping with their own money and providers competing on basis of price and quality.

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? How old are you?


----------



## expatriate (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > The alternative is what?    Those of you who keep calling for a capitalistic approach...  I'm waiting to hear exactly what the alternative is.
> ...



and how does the insurance industry and the profit they suck out of the system make our health care better and more cost effective?


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

expatriate said:


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



In healthy, functioning market, profit is earned by providing valuable services that people actually want. It's not a drain, but a driver of value. The health care market, and the health insurance market, is burdened by ill-conceived regulation and tax policies that distort the market and drive price inflation. With PPACA, it's no longer a market at all, but a public utility cartel of corporate insurance companies. 

To hell with all you morons who supported selling us out to the insurance industry.


----------



## editec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > if there had been no third-party payment systems (government or private) devised for health care.





> 1) a government or soviet monopoly of course will be very very inefficient and expensive. A private capitalist competitive insurance system would be the exact opposite.



Which does not remotely address the issue you just quoted.  Likewise your response seems to neglect the history of how and when HC insurance started in the USA.

Private HC insurance has been around longer than medicade or medicare.

Seriously man do you know_ anything about this subject_ in the real world we share?






editec said:


> 2. The state of the art of HC would be far less advanced than it currently is.





> why would you say that? A better product is always the best way to leap frog your competition! Cars computers phones etc etc all got much much better thanks to capitalism, the greatest life saving force in human history by 100000%



I say that because the introduction of massive amounts of capital into the HC system gave incentive and capital for HC reasearch.

Once again, do you know ANYTHING about this subject?

Your posts to date suggest you don't.


----------



## Agit8r (Mar 23, 2013)

Markets work great when the object is to sell the most of a product.  When the object is another outcome, profit motive is contrary to sound operation.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > The alternative is what?    Those of you who keep calling for a capitalistic approach...  I'm waiting to hear exactly what the alternative is.
> ...



So what we've had.    Good thinking. 

I'm old enough to remember how that worked.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


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



Freedom is what we had and what brought us to this point, along with every other civilized nation on the planet.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



No, it's exactly the opposite. Increased regulation and corporate/state collusion track just ahead of health care inflation historically. 

The health care and health insurance markets are deeply dysfunctional right now; you'll get no disagreement from me on that. But freedom is not the culprit. It's not the bad faith actions of individual insurance companies that are the problem. It's their collusion with the state, via lobbying and DC's 'revolving door'. That's what drove the tax and labor policies that built the group insurance industry in the first place, and it's the same kind of manipulation of the process that created PPACA.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 23, 2013)

dblack said:


> It's not the bad faith actions of individual insurance companies that are the problem. It's their collusion with the state, via lobbying and DC's 'revolving door'.



its easier than that. Liberals actually made competition between health care insurance companies illegal! Imagine what the cost of toothpaste would be if each state had their own requirements!!


----------



## Grandma (Mar 24, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> If you want a good car you only buy a good car and the bad car companies go out of business, if you want good care you only buy good care and  those who don't provide good care go out of business!
> 
> Capitalism is the best way to improve the quality of caring at the fastest possible rate!! A government system provides no competition and no incentive to care and improve each day.
> 
> As a liberal you'll find that over your brainwashed head.



That little fairy tale needs to be put to rest.

Without consumer protections quality and safety standards drop like anvils off a cliff. 

Buyers have no real choice. 

For example, look at the lack of standards we have for elected officials.

And competition is wiped out with deregulation Invariably a monopoly ends up running the whole market. Maybe you're too young to remember the AT&T breakup.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2013)

Grandma said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > If you want a good car you only buy a good car and the bad car companies go out of business, if you want good care you only buy good care and  those who don't provide good care go out of business!
> ...



Without consumer 'protections' there are no mandated standards. That's the point. People are free to seek out the level of quality that best fits their own budget and preferences, instead of being forced to conform to yours.



> And competition is wiped out with deregulation Invariably a monopoly ends up running the whole market. Maybe you're too young to remember the AT&T breakup.



Little fairy tale, indeed. In reality, monopolies are exceedingly rare in free markets. When and where the exist, they almost always enjoy sanction from the state. Most monopolies and cartels are maintained via active collusion _with_ government (eg PPACA), not in spite of it.


----------



## Grandma (Mar 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Do you think that insurance lobbies would skulk away quietly?


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Little fairy tale, indeed. In reality, monopolies are exceedingly rare in free markets. When and where the exist, they almost always enjoy sanction from the state. Most monopolies and cartels are maintained via active collusion _with_ government (eg PPACA), not in spite of it.



I strongly disagree with the whole concept that single payer is dangerously coercive.  In fact, it is the cheapest route possible and since everyone in the nation is part of it, there is no coercion whatsoever, but then Canadians aren't raised to fear their government is out to take away their freedoms at every turn.  We are in no way paranoid about our government.

People have government funded insurance coverage from the moment they're born until the moment they die.  There is no coercion.  No one will put you in jail if you don't participate.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Little fairy tale, indeed. In reality, monopolies are exceedingly rare in free markets. When and where the exist, they almost always enjoy sanction from the state. Most monopolies and cartels are maintained via active collusion _with_ government (eg PPACA), not in spite of it.
> ...



Could you please define 'coercion' as you're using it? I know of no definition that would exclude law enforcement. As to the rest of it, for good or bad, the US isn't Canada.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 24, 2013)

Grandma said:


> Without consumer protections quality and safety standards drop like anvils off a cliff.



under capitalism  you are obviuously free to buy the most quality and safety possible. The products with the least safety and quality are the first ones to go bankrupt; the ones with the most safety and quality are the first ones to make a huge profit.  What IQ must you have to not know that????????? Ans: a liberal intelligence  



Grandma said:


> Buyers have no real choice.



dear an average supermarket has 12,000 different items for sale!!!!!!!
a liberals intelligence for sure. 100% pure ignorance!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> I strongly disagree with the whole concept that single payer is dangerously coercive.  In fact, it is the cheapest route.




well then you and Joseph Stalin must want it in every industry!!
See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> I strongly disagree with the whole concept that single payer is dangerously coercive.



this is because you are very very slow which is very very typical for a liberal. Single payer provides no incentives for consumers to shop and for providers to innovate in terms of price and quality.

Joseph Stalin and many others tried communism; they acheived about 25% of our standard of living, and that was only because they copied everything from the USA. Sorry


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 24, 2013)

dblack said:


> Could you please define 'coercion' as you're using it? I know of no definition that would exclude law enforcement. As to the rest of it, for good or bad, the US isn't Canada.



If every person in the land is born into a world where universal health care is funded by taxes and not by insurance, how is the system coercive?  If companies know that a portion of their taxes, say 1/2 of one percent of their entire payroll up to $200,000, and 1% on the amount over $200,000 and that is simply part of the government's charge for you to do business in this state, then how is it coercive?

I know Americans are hugely paranoid about government whereas Canadians will just say "fuck you, we're never voting for you again".  They did that to the party which signed the NAFTA Agreement in the very next election.  The Progressive Conservative Party pissed the whole country off by giving us NAFTA and an 8% VAT known as the Goods and Services Tax.  The next election the party went from a 206 seat majority to holding 4 seats.  That's not enough for official party status.  

Canadians did it to the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2003 Election after a huge scandal where Liberal bagmen funnelled millions of $$$ to the businesses of defeated party hacks.  The Liberals are invoking the name of the greatest Liberal Prime Minister in history, by running the son of Pierre Elliott Trudeau as party leader, but it may be too little too late.

That's how we treat parties who screw us over.  Americans could learn from that.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> If every person in the land is born into a world where universal health care is funded by taxes and not by insurance, how is the system coercive?



dear, if everyone has to stand in the same bread line it is very very coercive. You want to be free to shop for the best and you want providers free to innovate and so offer the best.

Canada works a little because they can steal everything from us while having a soviet no incentive system that produces nothing on its own.
How can that be over your head????????


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please define 'coercion' as you're using it? I know of no definition that would exclude law enforcement. As to the rest of it, for good or bad, the US isn't Canada.
> ...



Taxation is coercive by nature. Otherwise it we'd call it 'donation'.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 24, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > Without consumer protections quality and safety standards drop like anvils off a cliff.
> ...



Ford didn't go bankrupt after calculating  that it was cheaper to make Pintos with unsafe gas tanks and get sued,  than it was to fix the gas tanks and to hell with the people that would die.  Ford's still in business.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 24, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Truman tried for a form of national health insurance after WW2 but republicans yammered socialism repeatedly until it was forgotten.  If we can't take care of those in need who  can't afford medical care, such as Canada and most other first world nations do,  than we  are truly nothing but an oligarchy.


----------



## Grandma (Mar 24, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Grandma said:
> 
> 
> > Without consumer protections quality and safety standards drop like anvils off a cliff.
> ...



Are those 12,000 different brands of the same item? How many different brands of baked beans are there? Do you have any idea how many different brand names are owned by Kraft Foods?


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


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



So you are claiming there was never a purely free system and that these regulations have always been around?

Of course that isn't true.   And of course we've had a free system in the past.   What you fail to understand is that these rules and regulations were all put in place for a reason.   Every one of them was done to address a problem.   Free market systems are no panacea.  

You are obviously wishing for a past that never existed.  

Now if you are saying there is too much regulation, that some of them have gone to far, you might have a point.    But this notion that we need no regulation is laughable by anyone who has picked up a history book.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


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



I couldn't care less if it's a tax or a premium.   Either way we need coverage.   So all I care about is which is cheaper.    And it's clear that single payer could be saving us a fortune.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



Nope. Not claiming that.



> Of course that isn't true.   And of course we've had a free system in the past.   What you fail to understand is that these rules and regulations were all put in place for a reason.   Every one of them was done to address a problem.   Free market systems are no panacea.



And many of them have had unintended consequences that have contributed to health care inflation and lack of flexibility in the market.



> You are obviously wishing for a past that never existed.



Nope. Wrong again. Probably best to just read what I type and not spend to much time guessing what I'm 'wishing for'.



> ... this notion that we need no regulation is laughable by anyone who has picked up a history book.



0 for 3.

Listen, re-read my post and try again.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



Exactly. That's the insidious equivocation at the core of this argument - the idea that corporations and government are functionally the same thing. And it's pushing us headlong into a corporatist state where equal rights and individual freedom are a thing of the past.


----------



## editec (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




Single universal payer insurance is more efficient than multiple payer insurance.  It is not a perfect solution, it is merely better than anything else we can think of.  It would give us about a 25% decrease in costs instantly since it eliminates insurance companies nearly 20% admin costs and their 5% profits.  Additionally it would also bring down HC providers admin costs since they'd only need to to paperwork with one HC payer

Medicade's admin costs are about 2% of the cost of HC.

If you do not instantly understand why Universal HC insurance is more efficient then you really do not understand the entire concept of risk pooling and insurance.

ACA is the worst possible response to the HC cost problem I can imagine.  Obama's introduction of that instead of Single Payer was a betrayal of his own platform.

Thinking that somehow forcing people to buy HC insurance from a private HC insurance company is *socialism *is dumber than dust.

And that is what ACA does.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

editec said:


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



Maybe. It's usually possible to construct a more 'efficient' system (at least from some perspective) with a dictatorial solution. But the costs of indulging this urge aren't always represented in dollars. 



> ACA is the worst possible response to the HC cost problem I can imagine.  Obama's introduction of that instead of Single Payer was a betrayal of his own platform.
> 
> Thinking that somehow forcing people to buy HC insurance from a private HC insurance company is *socialism *is dumber than dust.
> 
> And that is what ACA does.



Sad, but true.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


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



What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of.    This is government of the people and for the people.   We elect our leaders.  

It seems like most people I talk to are more scared of what the government might do than anything they have actually done.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.


----------



## lynn63 (Mar 25, 2013)

The problem I see with a one payer system is not having in place strict policies on surpluses for any given year that prevents using those extra dollars for anything but healthcare. Our government is complaining about rising costs at this particular moment in time is that the revenue coming in is less then what is being paid out.   The years of surpluses that they spent to build our large government is gone with no means to pay back on those surpluses.

They should have thought of that when they kept signing all of those NAFTA agreements giving the OK for most of our manufacturing to leave the US.  Manufacturing companies and their large number of employees that were young and healthy is how healthcare insurance companies made such large profits over the years.

This is the main reason why Obamacare is being mandated now to recapture what is left of the businesses that were not obligated to obtain healthcare.  It is NOT going to benefit the working class since they will end up paying for most of their healthcare even with insurance.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


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



Yes, I know what governments can do.   But when has our government been guilty of the same in its domestic policy?    

Look at gun control.   You guys were all worried, but the reality is the number of people against it meant it was never going to happen.   The same is true with most anything too extreme or unpopular.    So if our government does something it's because we allowed them to.     

And we can always change our minds.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> The problem I see with a one payer system is not having in place strict policies on surpluses for any given year that prevents using those extra dollars for anything but healthcare. Our government is complaining about rising costs at this particular moment in time is that the revenue coming in is less then what is being paid out.   The years of surpluses that they spent to build our large government is gone with no means to pay back on those surpluses.



In most respects our government is smaller than it used to be.    The only notable exception to that is in defense. 



> They should have thought of that when they kept signing all of those NAFTA agreements giving the OK for most of our manufacturing to leave the US.  Manufacturing companies and their large number of employees that were young and healthy is how healthcare insurance companies made such large profits over the years.



This is the root of most of our countries problems.    The destruction of our manufacturing sector will be the reason for our decline if we don't address it and soon.   Sadly virtually none of our politicians are talking about it.    



> This is the main reason why Obamacare is being mandated now to recapture what is left of the businesses that were not obligated to obtain healthcare.  It is NOT going to benefit the working class since they will end up paying for most of their healthcare even with insurance.



Health care is mandated now because there is no other reasonable way to manage cost.   Romneycare has a mandate.   The republican plan in the 90's had a mandate.   And you better believe if McCain had won and come up with his own plan, it would have included one too.

Nobody likes it, but short of creating a medicare for all type scenario, a mandate is the only reasonable solution.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.



But your thinking seems to be entirely predicated on that worst case scenario.  And yes, corporations do have armies now.  Blackwater, Haliburton - both have armies.  Outsourcing government contracts is where the money is now and both are hiring out what used to be derisively referred to as "mercenary armies".  I find it chilling to think the former vice-president and the former Secretary of Defense are so emeshed in the US homeland security infrastructure, but then I don't live there.

As a student of history, I would suggest look at how Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld conducted the Iraq war funnelling billions of US taxpayer $$ into companies that they owned stock in, and in some cases founded, with the goal of making money off their public service.

As a guy who is batshit crazy paranoid over stuff that isn't a problem, you're totally missing the stuff the IS exactly what you're talking about.  These are the rich white guys of the Republican Party.  The ones who started the war in Iraq, based on false information, so that they or their corporate friends, could steal Iraq's oil wealth.  They almost pulled it off too.  Now they want the US to attack Iran.

Scary guys running the Republican party.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> What always baffles me is this notion that government is something we should be terrified of.



perfect proof that a liberal will be very very very slow!!

I wonder why our Founders gave us very very limited government?
What were those fools thinking!! It almost seems that they had studied  history and learned that central liberal government was responsible for the constant slaughter that is the vast majority of human history. Imagine that, they knew it in the 18th Century and modern liberals still don't know it even after seeing Hitler Stalin and Mao. I guess its no surprise they spied for Hitler and Stalin. Does anyone know why they did not spy for Mao or Pol Pot??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> As a student of history,



dear as a liberal you lack the IQ to be a student in any worthwhile sense. We know this from  your conclusion that China is worse off under capitalism than communism.

Do you think any of your conclusions are better than that one when they are all based on the same braindead liberal bigotry.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> One quarter of the money Americans pay for US health care goes to pay for insurance company staff whose job it is to refuse or limit their claims.



this is another lie from a truly retarded liberal. If this is true I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again with your liberal tail between your legs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The ones who started the war in Iraq, based on false information,



far more importantly it was information that all the world's intelligence services believed to be true, and information that Sadam wanted Iran to believe so Iran would not attack.

Liberals loved Saddam's rape rooms, terrorist support, use of chemical weapons against the Kurds,  and other things and so wanted to support him I suppose??

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> The capitalistic system you long for was tried for 200 years and it was an epic FAIL, Eddie.  By 1965, half of all Americans could not afford private health insurance.  So much for your "free market competition would lower prices".



world renowned stupidity and bigotry once again. The McCarran-Ferguson Act ( 1945) made competition in health care insurance illegal in 1945!!!

Don't worry as a liberal bigot you can ignore the truth as you ignore China's Republican capitalist economic miracle!!


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You should read some history, if you're looking for examples of what government can do when it comes unhinged. It's not that corporations are innnocent, but they don't have armies, and - unless we invite them to (PPACA) - they can't force their will on us with police.
> ...



Scary guys running the Democrats as well. 

It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper.




you're are right of course!!! that's why the USA has the most capitalism and is the poorest country in the world!! 

And we must tell China and East Germany to switch back to liberal communism when every thing was cheaper!!

Thinnk about :
East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999,  Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> Scary guys running the Democrats as well.
> 
> It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.



Liberal communists like Dragon lady imagine that their leaders will be brilliant and pure of heart so can be given all they power they need to do whatever they want. Never mind our Founders' wisdom or  that 70% of Obama's energy fund went to his bundler donors who controlled companies like Solyndra! And never mind that the great liberal heroes like Hitler Stalin and Mao slowly starved or killed around 200 million!!
Is it a surprise that true believer bigoted morons like Dragoin lady spied for Stalin??


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.



Well for starters, when it comes to health care, government funded single payer is the cheapest route to go so I'm all for anything that strips out layers of waste - which is what pre-approvals and fighting over claims adds.  One law firm I worked for self-funded their employees supplementary health care.  The deposited their annual insurance premium for 800 employees into a trust fund, and paid an insurance company claims department to simply pay the claims - and they saved $100,000 per year.  At the time I worked for this law firm, supplemental insurance premiums for family coverage were $1200 per year.  If you can save $100K per year on 800 people, imagine the savings on 300 million.

A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.  I opt for the cheapest, least intrusive choice.  Private insurance is telling my doctor how to treat me.  No thank you.  My option puts my care in the hands of me and my doctor.  I like this one better.

As for the other, you must have missed my post about how Canadians treat governments that screw them over.  After the shennanigans that Bush and the Republicans pulled in Iraq, and the economy, the three Republicans left in office would have sell pencils on the steps of the Capital Building for rent money.

I'm still mulling over whether the Hail Mary pass of handing the Liberal Party of Canada over to Justin Trudeau will work for me.  I like the kid, and I don't overly romanticize his father's legacy.  Great guy to build a nation - really lousy on the economy.  We need people who can handle the economy at the moment.  I'm not seeing one on the Canadian horizon.

Fortunately for us, Stephen Harper is a total chicken-shit conservative who was around to witness the decimation Canadians will bestow on governments that piss them off, so Stevie boy keeps his head low and his neo-con thoughts to himself.  

I know Harper wants to dismantle our health care system and he doesn't dare.  Canadians just named it's creator as the Greatest Canadian Who Ever Lived.  Ahead of even Justin Trudeau's old man and Wayne Gretsky.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Well for starters, when it comes to health care, government funded single payer is the cheapest route to go .



and of course for food, clothing, and shelter too!! Health care is merely a foot in the door for our  liberal communists!! Did Marx write somewhere that only health care was to be socialized?? Of course not!!


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.



I don't recall making that point at all. To the contrary, it's my view that your 'pick your poison' choice is a false dichotomy. It's an assumption that both the federal government, and the insurance industry, would like for us to accept, but it's simply not true. Endless variety. 

But even if you can't see beyond those two options, where is the logic in doing what we did in the US - and essentially combine the two? 

I feel like I did when Bush was pounding the war drums at Iraq and hardly anyone questioned it. I felt like my nation was starting to go a little bit crazy.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.
> ...



I've asked now, in two threads, addressing multiple conservative posters.

What is the alternative?    Because this notion that some solution exist that nobody has thought of or tried anywhere in the world seems a bit far fetched.     Everything has been tried somewhere.    And guess what?   Virtually the entire world has come to the same conclusion.  

But if you have some miracle cure that hasn't been tried before I would love to hear it.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


> What is the alternative?



capitalism is the miracle, just like when capitalism made the cost of lasik surgery come down by 90% as quality went way way up!!

or like when  China switched to capitalism and instead of slowly starving to death in the millions people started buying cars in the millions

Simply really but a liberal will lack the IQ to understand


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > What is the alternative?
> ...



Just asking.  Is the current Chinese system the one you want to emulate, since you brought it up as an example.

Oh and hey, slow down on the name calling.  It makes ppl think u are 12.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


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



why so stupidly trying  to change the subject when I have a student here learning the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism?

I'm talking life and death and you're splitting hairs like an ass.


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Oh and hey, slow down on the name calling.  It makes ppl think u are 12.



It's the influence of the Chicago School of Economics.  Friedman believed in the purity of the free market.  All government funded social programs are communistic and a distortion of the free market including education.  Anyone who proposes or supports the idea of government programs, is a communist.  

In part, this is to vilify anyone who supports or proposes social programs to ease the pain of increased unemployment and higher prices under free market reforms.  It is when the reality of the pain inflicted on the poor and middle class hits the masses that the people revolt against the reforms, and it is at that moment that Pinochet, and the Chinese Oligarchs unleashed the army on their own people, killing union leaders, teachers, lawyers - anyone who could or would oppose the wondrous free market reforms they were forced to accept.

Eddie thinks that 1% of the Chinese owning cars is the miracle of capitalism.  He thinks that having billionaires shows how wealthy a country is.  If the poor are starving, they should get a better education and a better job.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Eddie thinks that 1% of the Chinese owning cars is the miracle of capitalism.




Don't let your liberal bigotry prevent you from reading!!

Q. What is the future of the Chinese middle class?
A. The Chinese middle class may grow to 700 to 800 million, which is 50% to 60% of China's entire population. In the past, all the predictions have proven to be too conservative.
But on the other hand, a lot of Chinese will be in the lower middle class because education will prevent them from moving up. If young people start going into vocational schools, that's for lower skilled jobs.

Q. How big is the Chinese middle class?
A. It is estimated that it's more than 300 million -- already larger than the entire population of the United States.
About 25% of the population is middle class. It's about 50% of the urban population.

GDP 2013 (PPP):          GDP (PPP) 1980:
$11.3 trillion (2013), $202 billion (1980) econ grew 55 times greater from 1980 to 2013  
9.2% growth
10.5% 5-year compound annual growth
$8,382 per capita


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980






Data summary

Economic indicators for China
Click heading to sort table. Download this data
Main indicators
1980
1990
2000
2011
2016
SOURCE: IMF, WORLD BANK
Real GDP growth (annual %)	 7.8	 3.8	 8.4	 	 
Gross domestic product, current prices (US$, billions)	 202.46	 390.28	 1198.48	 6988.47	 11779.98
Gross domestic product per capita, current prices (US$)	 205.12	 341.35	 945.6	 5183.86	 8522.8


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



You'd never be satisfied with the answer. Because there isn't ONE answer. There are as many answers as there are people with opinions. 

You know, the really frustrating thing is, the whole health care reform thing could have gone down sanely. I'm opposed to making health care a government concern on principle, but the idea of making sure everyone has health care is certainly a laudable goal. We could have, for example, approached it from the ground up - more like what we did with publicly funded primary education. That would allow local families and communities to seek solutions that fit their needs, rather than follow mandates handed down from Aetna via DC.

But that would never suite the ambitions of those pushing the hardest for these kinds of corporate/government "partnerships". The major players in the health care industry all signed off on PPACA - it would have never passed otherwise - and you can bet they're getting something for their money.

For me, the travesty of PPACA isn't that it's an expensive entitlement, or even that pushes us down the road to 'socialized medicine'. The rotten core of PPACA is that it's text book corporatism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

dblack said:


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



throughout history the liberals have always felt that as long the fascist corporatists were their liberal fascist corporatists there would not be a problem: 

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDels subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsens Crop Service and Olsens Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chems subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

the guy who starts this thread and contributes most to it believes that sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers, which shows the profound depth of his lack of understanding of healthcare in America.

I am certain that single payer is not a matter of "if" and only of "when"... much like gay marriage.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> ed says: sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers,



At least equally preferred anyway if you have a free economy. Like life insurance, the older and sicker you are the more you pay so the company doesn't really care about your age. Or, like any free market really, if you're gonna need a lot of car, like a Rolls Royce for example, or a  lot of insurance, you're gonna pay a lot more than someone who needs less.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> I am certain that single payer is not a matter of "if" and only of "when"...)



Marx predicted single payer communism 150 years ago!!! Don't hold your breath unless its between strokes on your way to Cuba. Why not move there before it too turns capitalist on you??

You like free lunch welfare communism only because you lack the IQ to understand capitalism as the OP claims.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 25, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



Instead of compelling people by law to either buy insurance or pay 1500 into federal exchange insurance coops,
give people the option to invest DIRECTLY in more medical school and health programs with internships to work off loans or course credits by serving in public clinics and facilities.

create sustainable health education and service programs instead of paying companies that profit off insurance which isn't providing the actual services or training actual providers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


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



gibberish nonsense!! you have to pay directly in cash in the real world or try to create a huge huge barter bureaucracy that would only add to the huge inefficiency that already exists. Please give that idea a rest forever.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > ed says: sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers,
> ...


again... you don't understand what risk pool economics is all about.  Sick people are NOT equally preferred because they use more insurance dollars than the size of their premiums.

Healthy people who pay premiums year after year and never need any major medical care are, by far, the preferred customers for health insurance companies.

You really don't know what the fuck you are talking about.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Sick people are NOT equally preferred because they use more insurance dollars than the size of their premiums.



of course you cant buy more car than you pay for
in a free market


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Now the name calling I did hassle you on, but if you are done with that I am done giving you a hard time about it.

About the Chinese system.  I asked because YOU keep bringing it up as an example.  So, is the current Chinese economic model that you KEEP bragging on the ideal form of whatever you support?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



you idiot liberal  there is probably not a person in the west who would think of that as ideal!

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


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Sick people are NOT equally preferred because they use more insurance dollars than the size of their premiums.
> ...



in a free insurance market, you certainly can.  And THAT is how health insurance markets WORK.  They accept the fact that some of their customers will get "more car than they pay for" because they KNOW that the bulk of their customers will get significantly LESS car than they pay for.  That does NOT, however, mean that they PREFER the sick ones... as you have stupidly asserted here.  They PREFER the customers who pay their premiums every year and NEVER get sick.  Those people pay for a car, but the insurance companies never has to give it to them.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



I know you get confused but just think of it like life insurance. You pay based on how long your life is likely to be. They don't care if you are 10 or 90 as long as libturds leave them free to charge the true cost of insuring you.  

Not so hard is it??


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



you really are dumb as a box of rocks.  Health insurance is NOT like life insurance.  Everyone dies, but not everyone gets sick.  But everyone WORRIES about what would happen if they DID get sick.... so, even though they may be healthy as a horse, they STILL buy health insurance... and THEY are the absolute PREFERRED customers for health insurance companies.  THey KNOW that they majority of healthy people in any given year will remain healthy and they get to pocket the premiums without ever having to pay a claim... it is THAT shared risk that allows them to be able to pay the costs of health care for the folks who DO get sick and still be able to make a profit. But AGAIN... you are absolutely DEAD WRONG when you say that sick people are the PREFERRED customers of health insurance companies... and the fact that you can even say that with a straight face means that you don't have a fucking clue what the concept of a shared risk pool is and how it relates to the health insurance marketplace.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Ok......so you find what about this Chinese economic system that you are bragging on less than ideal?

Is it less government controlled than our economy?  Or is the more government controlled system rising faster?

Be nice Edward.  Your insults remind me of things a 12 year old girl says when she gets grounded.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> Everyone dies, but not everyone gets sick.



actually dear we all get sick before we die. Sorry!!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone dies, but not everyone gets sick.
> ...



I know a guy who died in a car crash.  And a gal who just "pop" had an anuerysn..


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > Everyone dies, but not everyone gets sick.
> ...



as I said, in any given year, health insurance companies know that the vast majority of healthy people will stay healthy and THEY, therefore, unlike your moronic assertions to the contrary, are the PREFERRED customers.

And lots of people die without getting sick first.  Bing Crosby.... out walking on the golf course, BANG... dead of a heart attack.  No health insurance payout there.  Jayne Mansfield.... driving down the road and runs up under a stopped semi truck.  No health insurance payout there.

and don't you dare call me dear.  Are you a flaming faggot trolling on the internet?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > expatriate said:
> ...



too stupid health insurance is based on the high probability that you will get sick before you die. Why not just read instead of comment??


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



and AGAIN, you prove time and time again how dumb you really are.  Health insurance premiums are paid year upon year upon year upon year by young, healthy customers who are scared of the costs of catastrophic illness.  Of course they will die sometime, and, probably, they will get sick, perhaps, before they do finally die, but the health insurance companies have been pocketing their premiums for decades... AGAIN.... YOU were the one who said that sick people are the health insurance company's PREFERRED customers and you have YET to admit that that is bass-ackwards from reality.  YOU are a moron.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



No need to bet $10,000 a fella didn't say everyone gets sick THEN dies.

Back tothe economic model you hold so high, the Chinese......


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

expatriate said:


> .  Health insurance premiums are paid year upon year upon year upon year by young, healthy customers who are scared of the costs of catastrophic illness.



1) except we know the young are now called invincibles because they frequently don't buy insurance


2) and we know that in a free market if one insurance company put 20 year olds and 90 year olds in the same risk pool it would cost the 20 year olds a fortune to pay for someone elses ill health. So, a competitor would group 20-30 year olds together and drive the other company out of business!!


See why we are positve a liberal will be slow, so very very slow.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > .  Health insurance premiums are paid year upon year upon year upon year by young, healthy customers who are scared of the costs of catastrophic illness.
> ...



you clearly have never worked in the insurance industry.  Health insurance companies do not only sell insurance to 20-30 year olds... they insure most everyone.  Actuaries tell them how much they can charge and they do so accordingly.  Certainly, a younger person will pay less than an older person will, but the POINT is that, UNLIKE YOUR PREVIOUS STUPID  ASSERTION TO THE CONTRARY..... health insurance companies do NOT prefer to insure sick people, they PREFER healthy people... and the fact that it has been weeks and weeks since you made that ridiculous assertion and have still not admitted that it was idiotic PROVES just how very very slow YOU are.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



So now you are not bragging on the Chinese big government folks?  I thought you were talking about how great big government capitalism is?  Ya know, with central plans and government picked winners?  Kinda like in the time of Lincoln over here.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> I thought you were talking about how great big government capitalism is?



too stupid Jobs picked the Iphone not Chinese big governemt!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought you were talking about how great big government capitalism is?
> ...



Think big picture Edward not slogans.

Unless you are saying the Chinese have less government involvement and more freedom in their "capitalism" than we do.  

Maybe they do, do they?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.


----------



## Dorkazoid_Jones (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Edward my brother, you're  hilarious.  Keep up the good fight. I like your responses to convoluted liberal rationalization that somehow government run health care will be cost effective and an improvement on existing health care.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 25, 2013)

Dorkazoid_Jones said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



gibberish I'm afraid I'm sure you thought that meant something


----------



## Dorkazoid_Jones (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dorkazoid_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I'm trying to give you a complement. Lighten up Francis...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 25, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one.  Is that what you like?  Government controlled healthcare?


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



WHAT?
When you set up a clinic or a school
you can still have people collecting payments
or using a credit system to cover the costs.
You can create jobs doing that part of the system.

When students do work-study, there is a still a job/management/work structure going on.

Why can't you do BOTH.
Why can't we have SUSTAINABLE systems like campuses
and replicate them in every community so they are equally accessible.
The most successful universities I know retain their autonomy by private self-funding,
and they WORK by the FREE ENTERPRISE system, Ed. The ones that fail get caught up bureaucracy from govt grants or stipulations
if these start imposing conflicts that interfere with good educational policy. So why not have both, why not operate by free enterprise and ALSO replicate it by teaching people how to form teams to set up their own community campus programs organized by dept?

Ed, I know a woman Deepa Willingham who uses her professional business experience to BUILD SCHOOLS in India and now in Mexico to create schools and safe jobs and opportunities in education to uplift poor communities to help women and children recover from poverty and trafficking.

We talked about setting up a sustainable system of training college interns to mentor through her PACE universal program, such as how Habitat for Humanity replicates its work in local communities, to HELP with a school first before a team learns to set one one from scratch. Why not? Why not organize campuses in every community so there are jobs, education and services accessible by all people who learn to manage themselves?

isn't this the natural progression?

human beings start out as children under our parents' households,
before we learn to live independently first by renting then owning
then some learn to manage and rent property to others on this same learning curve
of social development.

well the same for social and political development.
America started as colonial settlements under our parent country of Britain
and then we broke free and started on the learning curve of governing as an independent nation
and now we are learning how to sustain and replicate this model insetad of everyone
trying to depend on the parent or government! duh!

Gee whiz Ed what do you think humans are doing on the planet? all these years?
aren't we supposed to be learning and growing to figure out how to live sustainably?

isn't the campus system the best way to organize people, knowledge, resources and
management systems to accommodate the fact that people are groups in different classes and levels of development? how else do you expect to achieve equal justice for all.

you are the one who needs to get real.

this idea of organizing local democracies through the "school" system
IS the most realistic workable solution I have found
where the idea of working in "schools" is universally understood by people and which also
includes social and cultural, political and religious, and economic diversity so no one is left out.

Nobody I know disagrees with education
except the people freaked out by the idea of change happening that systematically, locally and globally at the same time.

If you have emotional barriers preventing your mind from connecting the local level of change to the global level of collective impact on society, that is probably what you are objecting to, Ed. you have run into a wall in your own mind, so that is yours to deal with.
You have a powerful, analytical mind Ed. I'm sure you will come up with a lot of good innovations and reforms by the
time you process this idea through, from beginning to end, with all the economic, social and spiritual implications it entails! yes!

Go for it, Ed. I will meet you at the finish line and we can share notes.
Your input is as much needed as a critical skeptic as people who already see this is happening so of course it's possible to multiply worldwide. there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work, and it just takes coordinating them in a global network.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 26, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Not to worry. By the time the medical research gets out that proves the cost-effective benefits of "spiritual healing" on curing and reducing disease which medicine alone cannot, then it will be clear that govt cannot regulate the level of health care that is sustainable.
spiritual healing is based on forgiveness therapy which cannot be mandated, only chosen freely in order to work. even if you force someone to attend AA etc, it won't work if they don't freely choose to forgive and ask help to let go of past patterns of addiction or abuse. this part cannot be regulated by govt because it is spiritual and outside state authority.
the most govt could do is require that people who pose criminal threats due to dangerous levels of mental or criminal illness affecting public safety may be required to be detained while undergoing treatment or cure to manage their deadly addictions or conditions and not be allowed to roam free if this endangers others; but even that would have to be proven by medical tests so it is not an unfair judgment in violation of human rights and due process.

some of the sources I recommend for medical studies on spiritual healing:
Christian Healing Ministries
Francis MacNutt "Healing" edition 1999 or later (includes medical study on RA)
http://www.healingisyours.com Neurosurgeon Dr. Phillip Goldfedder
Scott Peck "Glimpses of the Devil"
Larry Dorsey and others who pursue scientific research of healing prayer and physical effects


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> WHAT?
> When you set up a clinic or a school
> you can still have people collecting payments
> or using a credit system to cover the costs.
> ...



I don't know of any examples of such a system working on a large scale such as we are talking about.    And never for anything so intricate as health care.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work,



Are you a commie pinko?? Profit is beauty and truth. Without profit we have no idea on earth where to invest our scarce resources.

Did you ever see what a soviet not for profit car looked like? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese not for profit economy slowly starved 60million to death, and why everyone suddenly got rich when they switched to for profit capitalism.

IF you lack the IQ to understand capitalism you lack the IQ to have an opinion. Sorry


----------



## Underhill (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Did you ever see what a soviet not for profit car looked like? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese not for profit economy slowly starved 60million to death, and why everyone suddenly got rich when they switched to for profit capitalism.



You might be taken more seriously if you took the time to think before typing.   The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.   As does virtually every rich, capitalist country in the world.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

Underhill said:


> The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.



you lack character and IQ. When you don't know something you merely lie, as a liberal would.

In rural areas, the breakup of the communes and the decline in government support led to the collapse of the rural Cooperative Medical System. The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14] 
In urban areas, the decline was not quite as dramatic, but by the end of 2003 only half of urban residents were covered by some health insurance scheme. Migrant workers were excluded from the schemes that existed.


----------



## expatriate (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.
> ...



sounds good, eh Ed?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

expatriate said:


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



typical liberal lacks IQ for substance


----------



## expatriate (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



lol

I would bet you a lot of money that my IQ is bigger than  yours.  really.  

And you failed to answer the question:  you've been touting the new capitalist China for days now... why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

expatriate said:


> why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.



China is a very very poor country so I'm sure that is reflected in the health care system. And your point is???? If you know???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 26, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Any thoughts yet on this Ed?


----------



## expatriate (Mar 26, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > why not just say how good their health care, especially when compared to countries like Canada and France, looks to you.
> ...


very poor country?  and here, just yesterday, you were crowing about how rich they had become once they turned capitalist and how everyone was buying cars.  Can you make up your mind, or what?  You are a mass of contradictions as you fail in your attempts to parrot right wing ideology... you clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground and your IQ is, I dare say, double digits only.  And you STILL have yet to admit that you were completely wrong when you tried to claim that sick people were the preferred customers for health insurance companies.  You are the classic example of the saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 26, 2013)

expatriate said:


> very poor country?  and here, just yesterday, you were crowing about how rich they had become once they turned capitalist and how everyone was buying cars.  Can you make up your mind, or what?  :



dear, the per capita income in China ($5500)is very very public information. It is still a very very poor country after only 30 years of capitalism, but, at 7-10% Republican capitalist growth each year for 30 years now they are getting richer faster than any country in human history.


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > The Chinese may be getting rich, but they still have national health care.
> ...



Interesting timelines you gave there.    Economic reform in China started in the 80's.   The old system collapsed because of mass migrations and a dozen other factors.    In 2003 China implemented new reforms...   so the truth is these programs are now being strengthened by their new economic prosperity. 

"The Chinese government still faces a mammoth task in trying to provide medical and welfare services adequate to meet the basic needs of the immense number of citizens spread over a vast area. Although China's overall affluence has grown dramatically since the mid-1980s &#8212; per capita income has increased many times over, and caloric intake has become comparable to that for western Europe &#8212; a great many of its people live at socioeconomic levels far below the national average. The medical system, moreover, labours under the tension of whether to stress quality of care or to spread scarce medical resources as widely as possible. In addition, there has been repeated debate over the relative balance that should be struck between the use of Western and traditional Chinese medicine. While the Cultural Revolution pushed the balance toward widespread minimum care with great attention paid to traditional medicine, policy after the late 1970s moved in the other direction on both issues; by the late 1980s the proportion of doctors of Western medicine had exceeded those of traditional practices.

The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a new 2003 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor. Nowadays the permanent urban population (except migrants) take out medical insurance.Many in the rural areas may struggle to afford with the new burden of healthcare fees, a result of the collapse of the old state-funded health system which existed before China's program of economic reforms in the 1980s.[1]"

What you call a "collapse" really happened because mass numbers of people and medical resources went to the city with the economic changes in the 80's and 90's.    

But they have always had national health care.    It was, and is, of poor quality but that is the way of things when you are a country filled with a billion people of very limited means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


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



The number of villages covered by the CMS decreased from 90% in 1979 to 5% in 1985.[14]


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


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



Yes, I know.  

And when did China's economic boom begin?     CMS was suffering because of lack of funds.    The country was 3rd world.    It still is in many regions.  

But what does that have to do with anything?    They still have national health care today, after their "capitalist boom".


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> They still have national health care today, after their "capitalist boom".



pretty stupid, right, when capitalism is ten 10 more efficient and leads to 100 times more innovation?


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> expatriate said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



So whats the average IQ for a liberal?  Links please.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Medicare works pretty good.  So does the VA.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



except for trillions in unfunded liabilities!! A liberal has no idea what that means or if the medicare idea would work well in all industries. A liberal is like a child and for same reason should not be allowed to vote


----------



## expatriate (Mar 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I am covered under TRICARE overseas.  In November, I spent $8700 US (110K mexican pesos, more or less) for a major shoulder operation here in Mexico.  I am getting a check from TRICARE for $8670 next week.  I think our government run healthcare programs work fine.  My shoulder surgery cost me WAY less than it would in the US, and our government is basically paying me every dime back.  Pretty sweet.  From my biased perspective, government run health care just got me a surgery that would have cost twice as much if I had been living stateside.  Go Navy!


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

poet said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...



So is Walter Williams.  Another house Negroe. He's always longing for the days after the civil war when there was less illegitimate births among blacks but more lynchings of blacks.   He doesn't add that last part or his white masters wouldn't support him.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

expatriate said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Don't rub it in.  I got out of the Navy in '66 as e4 and sometimes think, what if I stayed in.. oh well.  Where do you stay in Mexico?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> poet said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



would you bet any money that he doesn't talk about that or are you lying???

Under liberalilsm there are more blacks living in prison than there were slaves in 1860. He mentions that too!!


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


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > poet said:
> ...



Here's a link below about Walter saying this.  Now tell me old uncle walter doesn't long for the old days when he was a house negroe snitchin' on the field negroes.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism? I think that republicans, being hard line on drugs have helped create the number of blacks in prison for even minor drug laws. It's usually cops and prison guards that advocate these harsh laws mostly for job security by the way, and it's mostly republicans that push through these laws.  
You got any links  yet about a liberal's IQ? I showed you my link.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/04/w...s-father-black-males-have-become-dispensable/


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> .
> So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?



too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


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.


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > poet said:
> ...



How do we bet money on a forum anyway?  You're probably posting while working in a cubicle right now as  a government employee and maybe you  could get in trouble with the man


----------



## jasonnfree (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



How about something in your own words, Ed?   I'll read this later anyway, gotta  pick up a grandkid from a government run school (oh, the horror, the poor child, this is child abuse)


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



No worries, the kids teacher is in the union I'm sure!!


----------



## Dragonlady (Mar 27, 2013)

The American PEOPLE aren't the richest in the world. There are more American billionaires and large multi-nationals than any other countries because Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor. 

47% of Americans have so little income that they don't pay income tax and the receive government assistance. You can't claim on one hand that Americans are the richest people in the world when nearly half the population is on welfare. 

Most of the wealth owned by Americans, meaning more than 93%, is owned by the top 20% of corporations and individuals. The remaining wealth, about 6%, is controlled by the remaining 80%. Even there, the bottom three groups are mostly in negative numbers when it comes to assets and liabilities

Even a dumb liberal like me knows that the everyday American is not among the richest workers in the world. Not when half the people in the nation qualify for welfare.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 27, 2013)

And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.

Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.



too stupid of course since Gates, Jobs, and Ford for example got rich by selling to everyone!! The poor have to have Iphone wealth, computer wealth, and car wealth before Gates, Jobs, and Ford can make money!!

Henry  Ford made $1.49 a car per car sold. Where do you think the rest of the money went in a free economy!!

Isn't thinking fun???


----------



## Underhill (Mar 27, 2013)

boedicca said:


> And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.
> 
> Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.



Yes, the leftovers of American society are certainly nicer here than in Zimbabwe.   

Give it time.   At the rate we are going that will change quickly.

Our society is on a downward path and the poor are definitely getting poorer (as is the middle classes).    So in another few decades the picture may not be so rosy for Americas poor.  

Then again, I have an unemployed friend living in a 3 room apartment with his 2 daughters.   He's got a big TV he can't afford to watch (leftovers from his former working life).   A pay as you go cell phone his mom pays for, and food stamps.   

He may be better off than those African poor, but I'm betting he doesn't see his position as lucky.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Underhill said:


> Our society is on a downward path and the poor are definitely getting poorer (as is the middle classes).    So in another few decades the picture may not be so rosy for Americas poor.



What Washington really does - The Washington Post

Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest means tested federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.


 Heres what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted 2011 dollars); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskinss list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion. 

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesnt. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare  and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 27, 2013)

boedicca said:


> And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.
> 
> Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.



Pretty cool this America of the New Deal.  I took my kid to school today w/o a body guard and with no fear of being kidnapped for ransom by the underclass!

Go America!  I agree we have been kicking but!


----------



## Toronado3800 (Mar 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.
> ...



Thank you for that speech in favor.of bottom up economics.  Be nice so I don't have to be embarasssed when we agree.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 27, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



bottom up?? Its more like flood down as opposed to trickle down.


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 28, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work,
> ...



Dear Ed: You need to get whatever image out of your head you are projecting, or you are never going to hear what I am saying.  I AGREE with you that nonprofit/charities should be run as BUSINESSES and be self-sufficient and work with RENEWABLE Sustainable income, as with investors who make money passively off their rental property income.

What I'm talking about it is the SPIRIT of service to the community being the nonprofit part, not the actual structure which I agree should be set up and run as a self-sustaining BUSINESS which DOES generate or save more money than it spends. I have no argument with you, yet you keep trying to pick one by picking at my words to get something out of it that is NOT what I mean.

For example, there ARE insurance companies which make money and do not lose money, but they are operated for SERVICE and not to make "big salaries" for their owners.
Amica (sp?) is one such Christian nonprofit insurance company that has a reputable business; and the USAA insurance company which services Military families testified before Congress as a shining example of companies that already provide care WITHOUT needing any federal legislation. So this is proof that the FREE MARKET can be used to SERVE people WITHOUT depending on govt regulation to try to "micromanage" their operations/policies.

Ed, it is funny that you claim to be arguing for capitalism, but when I bring up examples of FREE MARKET and FREE ENTERPRISE solutions (whether people CHOOSE to operate as a business, church, school, nonprofit or whatever) you seem to push for Dependence on Govt.
Like Depending on govt to regulate welfare by enforcing requirements to work, INSTEAD of shifting the whole system to microlending where people either go to work or school to earn or work off credits, which again can be done either privately or publicly, through schools or businesses and does not have to depend solely on govt.  

Ed if I proposed that the liberal/socialist type Parties take on responsibility for setting up, funding and managing schools/health care/welfare systems to support all the people voting for that, would you freak out and want this to be legislated through Govt instead of shifting it to the Parties who believe in supporting people socially and financially while training them to become independent?  Does it scare you to think that work could be done through the private sector, based on the capitalist/free enterprise system of schools needing to make money in order to develop their programs and pay their staff?

Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?

Or are you having such a hard time believing you and I could actually AGREE on using business models that you keep picking at my words by projecting objections in your head?

I AGREE with you more than you seem to recognize (unless you are the one pushing for dependency on govt while I am the one pushing for free market solutions, and we are talking past each other for that reason).


----------



## emilynghiem (Mar 28, 2013)

Underhill said:


> I don't know of any examples of such a system working on a large scale such as we are talking about.    And never for anything so intricate as health care.



the "collective" scale is just adding up all the local groups around the world handling different aspects, not just health care, through sustainable systems of breaking the cycle of poverty. I am talking about adding all those efforts up, and calling that the global level.

The same way "Habitat for Humanity" trains leaders to head local chapters, to multiply and replicate efforts, there are expanded applications of this such as "Architecture for Humanity" where interns and investors plan community facilities which include schools, clinics etc. not just the houses but planning for the community and services for the people on site.

PACE Universal sets up schools, many groups set up orphanages, and one friend of mine was part of an organization that helped farmers/workers set up their own co-ops where they manage their own labor and retain more of their profits. Grameen Foundation/Bank won the Nobel Prize in 2006 for their microlending and business training program that has been replicated worldwide.

Likewise there are many individual doctors and medical organizations that set up clinics to provide not just services but EDUCATION and training in poor areas so that they develop more sustainable programs over time. Doctors Without Borders is one of the more established organizations besides AmeriCares and Red Cross/Red Crescent; and there is no telling how many independent church ministries organize medical drives and education outreach worldwide, where immigrants who come to America for education and professional opportunties pay it back by bringing education to their home countries to uplift the poor.

Again if you add up all these individual programs and efforts, and you look at the growing number of microdonation sites where individuals all over the world can fund these groups online, it isn't hard to see how all these efforts are coordinated like a huge network.

The TED conferences and other foundations have brought people and teams together to develop sustainable solutions that can be implemented systemically from local to global.

Every program and locale is going to have different needs, focus and set up to address them. So the collective/global scale is NOT going to be homogenous, all one type of system, but the amalgamation of all the diverse programs out there addressing different sectors.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 28, 2013)

emilynghiem said:


> Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?



Dear, of course being a liberal Democrat means you are not very smart. I'm sorry about that but I do admire your very civilized spirit of cooperation or whatever it is. Most liberals are very very violent! Class war, taxaction, regulations etc etc is what they live for.

You say you believe in "switching", well so do all Nazis, liberals and communists. Capitalism is freedom. If there is an opportunity to sustainably serve people, free people will find it without you switching them. You can pick the tiniest product you want and there will be lots of competition all over the world to make it better and cheaper , in order to serve customers, as long as the government is not involved to inhibit the porcess. This is how the earth now sustains 7 billion people!! Capitalism is the ultimate charity.

Also, an insurance company that pays the most to each employee, especially its top employees, will provide the best insurance. This is true in any industry. If you want the best or most life sustaining products in the world you want the best employees. Paying them best is the best way to get them, or the best way to allocate the scarce business talent necessary to produce the best life sustaining products.

Ok I know thats all way over your head but please try to study it. Thanks


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 27, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> medical costs will not decrease ever under a free market system, docs and the medical profeession are always wanting more pay.



we all always want more pay but that does not mean the free market allows it- right???


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 27, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> > Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?
> ...



Got it.  So the banks who pay more to their CEO's than my company pays its CEO do better and need less welfare?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > emilynghiem said:
> ...



too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??


----------



## Dragonlady (Apr 29, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??



Eddie, CEO salaries are set by the Board of Directors, who are usually CEO's of other companies, so when they vote one of their own a raise, well, tit for tat, you they'll up their own value.  CEO salaries have no relationship to profits, or share prices, or to average worker salaries.  This is the ultimate "old boys' club" clapping each other on the back.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 29, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > too stupid as usual!! would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is??
> ...



so do you want soviet libturds setting all wages and prices to increase our standard of living or do you have no idea as usual??
Porsche makes the most profit per car in the industry, do you want the libturds setting the price of all cars too??


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 29, 2013)

Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 30, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?



sub moron liberal, I have no idea why you would. If I said I knew I'll pay you $10,000. Always ask, what is the subject, before you write.
Always ask , Am I  creating a strawman because I lack the IQ to address the subject directly.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Apr 30, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, why would I invest in a company based on CEO pay and not on either the usual market reasons or my favorite of picking a company with a true innovative advantage?
> ...



Got it. You are a double agent trying to make republicans look bad.

Just quit riding the party line soo much and leave some room for free thought.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 30, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Would you want to invest in a bank that paid its top employees what the janitors get and pays its janitors what the CEO gets, or, would you want to invest in a bank or car company that paid its top people half what the industry standard is?? If you object, do you want government to set all prices and wages??


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 30, 2013)

expatriate said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



I lived in Tucson for more than 25 years. Until the drug companies put a stop to it, the elderly and working poor went to Mexico for drugs and to see doctors, have surgeries and so on. There used to be organized bus loads to Mexico. There's a common ailment in the desert southwest called Valley Fever, very expensive to treat, people would go to Mexico to buy the drug. Dogs get Valley Fever too. A big dog could cost as much as $10 a day to treat and the treatment was long term. I've bought the drug many times from a pharmacy on Calle Obregon just inside the border in Nogales, Mexico. 

US drug companies, in conjunction with the AMA, put a stop to it because they weren't able to bleed people dry for the drugs and treatment they need. (An aside: the AMA was formed - late 1800s - by doctors in England to combat the popularity of the very effective, safe and inexpensive Homeopathy.)

I'm afraid that there is so much misguided hate and ignorance about Mexico, people really have no idea what a beautiful country it is. Nor do they know that the Mexican people are brave and true and utterly loyal to their families. 

I once had to get emergency treatment in Belgium ... We can only hope the damn pubs will allow ObamaCare to become anywhere near as effective and affordable as the care I got was. 

Great to read your story and good for you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 30, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Its against the rules to try to take credit for other people's words. Its called plagiarism.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...


So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?
too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


----------



## jgarden (May 7, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...


*Liberals have an IQ high enough to understand that GWB had 8 long years in the White House of which 6 included Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress to produce the kind of private health insurance that the OP describes.

The real question is why didn't they introduce-this private cost-effective healthcare system when they had the chance?*


----------



## editec (May 7, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...



The argument that *third party HC payments systems* naturally work to cause price increases is valid.

_ Definitely TRUE_, Ed.

If there were no HC insurance schemes (paid by employers or government programs) then the price of HC would probably dramatically go down.

Anytime you take enormous amounts of cash out of an industry the price of what that industry creates goes down.

For example, when the cost of borrowing money goes up (increased interest rates) the price of homes either stabilizes or goes down, too.


----------



## dblack (May 7, 2013)

editec said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



The key point here isn't merely that insurance injects more money into the industry - but the way it does it. The standard high-coverage, low-deductible group plan removes virtually all incentive for the health consumer to look for bargains in their health care expenses. From the point of view of a patient of the 'covered' patient, there's almost no reason to choose less expensive alternatives. Arguably, the opposite incentive exists - if someone else is paying, why not choose the pricier option at every opportunity? Usually, more expensive equals higher quality, right?

I don't think insurance is inherently bad. It's our abuse of the institution that is the problem. Insurance makes sense as a hedge against _unexpected_ expenses. As a means for financing routine expenses it's dangerously irrational. Health insurance should be used for those expenses and illnesses we likely won't experience and hope we never face. For the rest of it, for the common ailments and accidents most of us can expect to face, it makes far more sense - both at the micro and macro economic level - to pay for it the way we pay for everything else; by working and saving and spending our own money. 

The delusion that we can simply 'join' a plan, pay a low monthly premium and have all our health care worries go away is a fantasy. We should approach it with the same skepticism we would the ubiquitous Nigerian prince with cash flow problems.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 7, 2013)

editec said:


> For example, when the cost of borrowing money goes up (increased interest rates) the price of homes either stabilizes or goes down, too.



Not even close to a valid comparison.  When interest rates go up, the carrying costs of the mortgage goes up, which reduces the number of potential buyers who qualify for a mortgage.  This lessens demand and prices stabilize or go down.

I have no problem saying that third party payers do add to the cost of health insurance, in the US, largely because of the number of third parties, and inconsistencies between what each will pay.  The complexities of billing and collection under this system means that most doctors hire outside billing companies, in essence fourth parties, to take care of their billing.  So you have actuaries and people in the insurance company fighting against paying claims, adding costs for doing so, and billing companies which add another layer of expense.  And of course, insurance company profits.  

Single payer systems don't have these additional expenses.  They're not fighting claims, merely paying them.  There are no staff involved in reviewing claims and refusing payment - so lower administration.  The single payer system is simple enough that doctors don't need an additional layer of administration to deal with them so those expenses are gone, as is the profit for the insurance company.

Nearly 1/3 of every health care dollar spent in the US goes to this complex administration system.  In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 7, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.



so then we should switch to single payer communism in all industries!! Dragonlady has the IQ of a genius for sure!!


----------



## expatriate (May 9, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > In Canada, and other single payer countries, that figure is around 10%, or less than one third of what the US spends.
> ...



that is not what she said.  all industries was never mentioned.  healthcare was.


----------



## lynn63 (May 9, 2013)

Profit needs to be eliminated from healthcare.  I do not want to pay 10,000 a year to a health insurance company that is only meant for a catastrophic health issue.  Who in their right would do this!

I also have a problem with paying an insurance company 10,000 a year in premiums with a 3,000 a year deductible because any health care I received in any given year will not exceed 3,000 based on the fee schedule of the health insurance company.  I end up paying for my healthcare cost for the year and the insurance gets to keep my 10,000 as profit.

I don't need health insurance just their fee schedule.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Profit needs to be eliminated from healthcare. I don't need health insurance just their fee schedule.



You are a 100% perfect example of a liberal lacking the IQ to understand capitalism. Do you want to eliminate profit from all industries?
Why would any company invest and then offer a product or service for sale if they could not make a profit? Also, profits in health care are not higher than other industries!!!

Also, if liberals made competition legal in health care profits would indeed be far lower than they already are. Its all way over your head- right?? Of course you are a liberal and as such will lack the IQ to even be embarrassed about your ignorance. But, you don't have to be a liberal all your life. Sorry.


----------



## lynn63 (May 10, 2013)

Capitalism becomes evil when it comes to your health.  I hope someday you don't need a organ transplant or get cancer because you believe in capitalism you won't get your care paid for.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 10, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Profit needs to be eliminated from healthcare.  I do not want to pay 10,000 a year to a health insurance company that is only meant for a catastrophic health issue.  Who in their right would do this!
> 
> I also have a problem with paying an insurance company 10,000 a year in premiums with a 3,000 a year deductible because any health care I received in any given year will not exceed 3,000 based on the fee schedule of the health insurance company.  I end up paying for my healthcare cost for the year and the insurance gets to keep my 10,000 as profit.
> 
> I don't need health insurance just their fee schedule.



Didn't you post this before?

You really need to find new insurance. If you're not in a pool, ObamaCare gives you the same buying power. You'll pay a lot less.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 11, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Capitalism becomes evil when it comes to your health.  I hope someday you don't need a organ transplant or get cancer because you believe in capitalism you won't get your care paid for.



too stupid of course!! China just eliminated half the world's poverty with capitalism. People there are now comparatively rich and can pay for more health care than ever before!!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 11, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalism becomes evil when it comes to your health.  I hope someday you don't need a organ transplant or get cancer because you believe in capitalism you won't get your care paid for.
> ...



Every one of your posts starts by telling the other poster they are "too stupid" but then you go on to prove that its YOU who doesn't know what you're talking about. 

EDUCATE yourself about China. and, no, I don't mean by watching fux, lushbo, beck, etc. 

Most Chinese are not "comparatively rich". Actually, just the opposite. Most still live in rural poverty that has not changed in a couple hundred years. 

Not going to bother writing more because you will just start out with "too stupid" and then call me "dear". If you ever decide to actually converse, like an adult, I'll talk to you. Until then, you're on ignore.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 12, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Most Chinese are not "comparatively rich".



China switched to capitalism 30 years ago, and today they are comparatively rich. Today 15 million buy cars, under liberalism 15 million slowly starved to death.

China eliminated half the world's poverty by switching from liberalism to Republican capitalism!

See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow? In fact the slower someone is the more they will be attracted to liberalism.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2013)

Only 13 million cars out of more than 1.3BILLION people. Do the math.

Wanting to look more prosperous than it really is, China changed the way it calculates poverty. As I wrote elsewhere, China has forced huge numbers of farms and villages off their land and converted the area to enormous cities that sit empty because no one can afford to live there. And its getting worse. 

Those who are considered middle class must leave their rural homes in order to live in company housing and they can only buy from company stores. 

There is nothing to envy or emulate in the Chinese way of life and only a fool would think otherwise. Further, to call this a liberal/conservative/capitalism question misses the point completely. 

China is not "Republican capitalist". Although they do allow private enterprise, China's Communist party is very much in control of all growth. In contrast, the US GObP/pub party is very fascist. 

If you have access to the interwebs, you could find out these things for yourself. Or not. Doesn't really matter either way because your post shows me that you are not capable of conversing like an adult. You were almost there but you let the spoiled baby out at the end.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Only 13 million cars out of more than 1.3BILLION people. Do the math.



dear, thats 13 million a year which in just one generation is now the same number as the USA buys per year. In one generation Republicans have eliminated 40% of world poverty by introducing capitalism in China.



Luddly Neddite said:


> China is not "Republican capitalist". Although they do allow private enterprise, China's Communist party is very much in control of all growth.



way too stupid!! THe communists control nothing. China now lives and dies under export market control. If they don't make the least expensive and best quality in the world the world goes elsewhere!!
Is this really too complicated for you?




Luddly Neddite said:


> In contrast, the US GObP/pub party is very fascist.



dear it is Republicans who sign the pledge to shrink government while Democrats do the opposite to create crony fascist Obamacare, for example.

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be very very slow?? They usually get things 100% backwards, and have no clue they have been brainwashed.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Only 13 million cars out of more than 1.3BILLION people. Do the math.
> ...



Got it.  Big government and no human rights make for happy corporations.  You love this as your 1,000 post in favor of the Chinese system indicate.  Big government aid for big companies.  Import controlls.  All staples of China.  Oh, and ignoring the patent offices of other countries.  Very important.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Big government and no human rights make for happy corporations.



way too stupid as usual!! Government has gotten tiny in China as 
the market now rules, and the human right not to slowly starve to death under liberalism has flourished. In fact 40% of the world's poverty has been eliminated in just 30 years thanks to saintly Republican capitalism!!

Now you see why we are positive a liberal simply lacks the IQ to understand almost all of whats going on in the world- right?


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Big government and no human rights make for happy corporations.
> ...



Ok Mr "I can't understand your three Jesus questions".  Call other ppl stupid.

So you admitted a few months ago Japanese cars are superior and grew so under their protectionist system of the time.  

What doya have to say about China's system of government?  Does having fewer environmental regulations make them smaller than ours?  I can see that.  OSHA standards get in the way?  Sure.  

Make your case instead of just yelling about IQ.  

My lord.  There is a debate here son.  Make some of your own points.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> .
> 
> Make your case instead of just yelling about IQ.



dear, case about what exactly?? You clean forgot to say, once again. You are 100% disorganized and so incapable of learning. In court they use the Socratic method, not your pure gibberish method. Ever wonder why??


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 13, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Make your case for how small the Chinese government is Edward.  It is not that difficult to understand or dig up stats for.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



If he could, he would. 

Since he cannot do anything but act like a know-it-all even though he seems to know almost nothing, he calls people stupid and "dear". 

Up until his idiotic swooning over Communist China's "tiny" government and the horrendous maltreatment of her people, I have mostly ignored him. I thought I would give him a chance to pretend to be a grownup but he blew it so, he's back on ignore.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Make your case for how small the Chinese government is Edward.



it is so small that it has relinquished most control to the free market!
China now lives and dies based on what the Republican free market says, not on what the government says!

When the liberal government had control 15 million died from starvation, now 15 million buy cars each year.

In fact, Republican capitalism  as eliminated 40% of the world's poverty in just the last 30 years.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 13, 2013)

I really wish rw's would look up the definitions of words and labels before they start throwing them around.


----------



## dblack (May 13, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I really wish rw's would look up the definitions of words and labels before they start throwing them around.



Totally agree. Same with lw's.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Capitalism becomes evil when it comes to your health.



but not the more important things like food, clothing and shelter?? Why would that be??


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 13, 2013)

China's caputalism or ours, which is more capitalistic and why?


----------



## bronko (May 14, 2013)

I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that the European Socialist healthcare sucks. I have a lot better experience here in the states.  But even me experience it at first hand I am having a hard time to convince a neo-Liberal. The US healthcare going dow because it's trying the imitate the European  version.. It started eroding since government stepped in to it few decades ago but still the best...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 14, 2013)

bronko said:


> I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that the European Socialist healthcare sucks. I have a lot better experience here in the states.  But even me experience it at first hand I am having a hard time to convince a neo-Liberal. The US healthcare going dow because it's trying the imitate the European  version.. It started eroding since government stepped in to it few decades ago but still the best...



yes, our liberals are very very slow. They lack the IQ to see that a government bureaucracy/monopoly is very very very inefficient at best. They treasonously want socialism in health care and in all industries.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 14, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bronko said:
> 
> 
> > I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that the European Socialist healthcare sucks. I have a lot better experience here in the states.  But even me experience it at first hand I am having a hard time to convince a neo-Liberal. The US healthcare going dow because it's trying the imitate the European  version.. It started eroding since government stepped in to it few decades ago but still the best...
> ...



Got it.  Slow like a fella who can not answer a three part question or that last simple one about Chinese small government.

Think Edward.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Got it.  Slow like a fella who can not answer a three part question or that last simple one about Chinese small government.
> 
> Think Edward.



Will the idiot liberal please state the most substantive question for which he dishonestly claims conservatism has no answer, or admit as a liberal he lacks the IQ to do so.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Got it.  Slow like a fella who can not answer a three part question or that last simple one about Chinese small government.
> ...



Ed, you remind me of this man from Bosnia I knew.  You would think he was a 12 year old girl when it came to conversation.  He played all these word games and would pretend to forget things.  Then he woukd always be waving around hjs wallet asking for gas money back if he was wasting his tine bartering or something.

I posting them questions several times in your topics.  Guess people will always just think you either can't read the questions or have no answer.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Will the idiot liberal please state the most substantive question for which he dishonestly claims conservatism has no answer, or admit as a liberal he lacks the IQ to do so.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> bronko said:
> 
> 
> > I am originally from Europe and I can tell you that the European Socialist healthcare sucks. I have a lot better experience here in the states.  But even me experience it at first hand I am having a hard time to convince a neo-Liberal. The US healthcare going dow because it's trying the imitate the European  version.. It started eroding since government stepped in to it few decades ago but still the best...
> ...



You stupid dumbass twit. 

We NOW have a socialistic system. If you don't pay, I have to pay for you. 

Obamacare requires YOU to pay for your insurance. 

WHY is that so fucking hard for you to GET??


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > I really wish rw's would look up the definitions of words and labels before they start throwing them around.
> ...



Would you mind taking it upon yourself to explain to dumb Edward that "capitalism" is not synonymous with Communism?

Thanks ever so much.


----------



## freedombecki (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> 
> Patients would be spending their own money so the incentive to decrease costs would increase 1000%
> 
> ...


They have the IQ to understand it, Edward.

They are easily swayed into herd mentality, though, and it's easier to follow the leader than to be one.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Well it seems to me if they had the intelligence they would not need to so quickly follow the Marxist herd. If you ever see an example of where a liberal shows that he understands capitalism please bring it to my attention. Thanks for all your posts!


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



I'll leave special Ed to his own devices. He seems content with his views as they are.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



if I intentionally  said they were synonymous I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away once again with your liberal strawman between your legs.


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Luddly, on second thought, I'll make a deal with you. I'll get Ed up to speed on socialism and capitalism, if you look up corporatism - and acknowledge that PPACA is a textbook example.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> I'll get Ed up to speed on socialism and capitalism,



please show where I'm not up to speed or admit you lack the IQ to do so. Thanks


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I'll get Ed up to speed on socialism and capitalism,
> ...



For starters, your repeated claim that China is some kind of free market success story. It's not.

Also, your claims that Obama is a socialist. He's not.

But that's not really what Luddly's talking about. He's pointing out that we have a fair amount of socialism forced on us already, and he's using the problems caused by those policies as justification for a corporatist agenda. Fairly shameful in my view.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> For starters, your repeated claim that China is some kind of free market success story. It's not.



why not read: "Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics"

"How China Became Capitalist" or listen to Fareed Zakaria a liberal explain how capitalism in China just eliminated 40% of world poverty???????????????????????????????



dblack said:


> Also, your claims that Obama is a socialist. He's not.



2 communist parents, supports single payer, voted to left of Bernie Sanders. 


dblack said:


> But that's not really what Luddly's talking about. He's pointing out that we have a fair amount of socialism forced on us already, and he's using the problems caused by those policies as justification for a corporatist agenda. Fairly shameful in my view.



I agree, liberals want more and more government but when it causes a soviet Solyndra problem or a financial crisis they turn a blind eye because they lack the IQ to explain whats happening.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 15, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....would work???
> ...



Good gawd. Another one who has no clue what EMTALA really is and that it was put into place by your hero, brain-dead Reagan. 

How is it possible that so many rw's believe that EMTALA is not socialism while believing that paying for your own health care insurance with ObamaCare IS socialism. 

Or, more likely, they DO know and they just like being on the public dole. Just like their congress men.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 15, 2013)

dblack said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Not a chance. You and I have been round and round enough on that and we will never agree. I have limited time I'm willing to blow off on this board and I'm sure as hell not gonna use it that way. Read the miles of previous posts and pretend the date is different. Or, just read the condensed version of my opinion: Pay your own way. 

As for Ed dear, its his confusion about capitalism v communism that is getting him messed up. He believes that China is capitalistic and the US is Communistic. He's got some other wacko "ideas" but start there. 

(Heh, just heard a little sound, turned to find a raccoon peeking in my door. I took those humming bird feeders down just in time. One night, we looked out to find him hanging from one and the sugar water coursing down his front. I imagine he was very popular when he got home that night. Or, maybe he stayed out in the woods and washed it all off himself. Yummy stuff.)


----------



## dblack (May 15, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



"Pay your own way" is a simple approach and requires only that government stay the hell out of our personal health and financial decisions. PPACA is the opposite.

Here's what you don't seem to get about the concept of responsibility. Responsibility is about being accountable for the decisions we make. If there is no freedom to make those decisions, if they are made for us via government mandate, there is no responsibility. PPACA is explicitly about alleviating individuals of the responsibility of managing their own health care expenses, reducing it to a matter of following orders and "tithing" to the corporate insurance cartel.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> As for Ed dear, its his confusion about capitalism v communism that is getting him messed up. He believes that China is capitalistic and the US is Communistic.



if you have evidence of that I"ll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman tail between your legs, once again.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

dblack said:


> PPACA is explicitly about alleviating individuals of the responsibility of managing their own.



A liberal lacks the IQ to have any appreciation of this whatsoever. They don't know that being responsible makes you efficient with your money and more and more knowledgable about where to get the best goods and services.

It puts industry on notice that consumers only care about price and quality.

PPACA and other forms of liberal socialism insure that neither industry nor consumers care about quality or price.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 16, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > As for Ed dear, its his confusion about capitalism v communism that is getting him messed up. He believes that China is capitalistic and the US is Communistic.
> ...



No, I won't bet you. That's a silly and childish thing to say.

Read what YOU yourself said in this thread. 

And, since you are still calling names, including "dear", you're back on ignore. Grow up and take responsibility for your own words.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 16, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> No, I won't bet you.



ok I'll bet you $20,000. Please let me know, or let your silence on the issue speak to the lies you tell and cant defend.

See why we say the liberal will be slow?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 20, 2013)

dblack said:


> PPACA [Obamacare]is explicitly about alleviating individuals of the responsibility of managing their own health care expenses,



so this means they will not care if the cost goes up and up, which is very much like the current system.


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 20, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



Ed, the posts praising capitalist growth in China make you look like you are well...praising their capitalism.

The ridiculous bets also do not play well in the Anglo world.  They seem like a combination of a word game pre teen girls play and eight year old boy boasting.  I have seen fifty year old Bosnian men hsing this as a bullying tactic in negotiations over furniture of all ridiculous things.  Folks just look at the grown men behaving like a spoiled child like they are desperate trying to clench a last piece of manhood or something.

The Indians negotiate much but do not do that.....  I have a theory about larger countries vs the tactics of smaller countries which always get walked over but have few examples.

Regardless if you bring uo the great Chinease capitalist system again I will remind you about your bet of hypocrisy.

Suffice it to say most would agree limited big government capitalism is playing well in China.  Just try to sound less crazy about how Republican or capitalistic they are.


----------



## Mr Natural (May 20, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > No, I won't bet you.
> ...



Why not make it $1,000,000?

It's the internet, you'll never have to pay up anyway.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 21, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



If he makes it ten thou and puts it in escrow, I'll take the bet. 

Not.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2013)

dblack said:


> PPACA is explicitly about alleviating individuals of the responsibility of managing their own health care expenses, .



yes exactly, this means people will not care if the cost goes up and up, which is very much like the current system. Capitalism would be a far better system.


----------



## Dragonlady (May 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> yes exactly, this means people will not care if the cost goes up and up, which is very much like the current system. Capitalism would be a far better system.



Capitalism is what screwed up your healthcare system in the first place, giving you the most expensive care in the world, with the least amount of coverage for $$$ expended.  Your system is administration heavy, since health insurance companies are in the business of keeping your premium money and denying claims.  Or capping expenditures at medically unrealistic levels.

But you're not bright enough to figure it out.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Capitalism is what screwed up your healthcare system in the first place,.



Hate to rock your little world once again dear but liberals made capitalism illegal in Ameican health care in 1946 with passage of McCurran Ferguson Act. This is why it is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines. And now you know too. Sorry!!

A wise woman looks to the future and does not torture herself over past embarrassments no matter how large. Sorry!


----------



## Dragonlady (May 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Hate to rock your little world once again dear but liberals made capitalism illegal in Ameican health care in 1946 with passage of McCurran Ferguson Act. This is why it is illegal to buy health insurance across state lines. And now you know too. Sorry!!



What does a bill about insurance have to do with health care????  It's the doctors and the hospitals and the drug companies that drive the cost of health care.  Restricting insurance by states is puppy shit in terms of restrictions and it only serves to protect small, local companies from being outpriced by big-time conglomerates.

You're focuses on the wrong villains, Eddie, but you do that a lot.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> What does a bill about insurance have to do with health care???? .



actually dear a bill about health insurance has everything to do with health care since health insurance is used to pay for health care!!
Not so hard was it?

see why we are positive a liberal will be slow?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 21, 2013)

There really are none so blind as those who choose to be. 

And, then there's the fact that dumb little kid Ed dear STILL doesn't know the difference between capitalism and communism. 

Dragonlady, if you haven't seen/read it, look into Money Driven Medicine, book and/or documentary.

Money-Driven Medicine

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Money-Driven-Medicine-Reason-Health-Costs/dp/B000MGAHZU]Amazon.com: Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much: Maggie Mahar: Books[/ame]



> Why is medical care in the United States so expensive? For decades, Americans have taken it as a matter of faith that we spend more because we have the best health care system in the world. But as costs levitate, that argument becomes more difficult to make. Today, we spend twice as much as Japan on health care&#8212;yet few would argue that our health care system is twice as good.
> 
> Instead, startling new evidence suggests that one out of every three of our health care dollars is squandered on unnecessary or redundant tests; unproven, sometimes unwanted procedures; and overpriced drugs and devices that, too often, are no better than the less expensive products they have replaced.



Read more at the link.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ed  STILL doesn't know the difference between capitalism and communism.



Can you say why you think I don't know the difference??


----------



## Toronado3800 (May 21, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalism is what screwed up your healthcare system in the first place,.
> ...



Liberals.....


Strong states rights.....

Edward, I actually agree with you about states and insurance companies a bit.

Still, your decision to use federal regulation over state regulation and calling out liberals is interesting to say the least.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (May 22, 2013)




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 22, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Ed dear STILL doesn't know the difference between capitalism and communism.



I don't?? If true why are you so afriad to say why you think I don't know. What does your fear tell us about the liberal IQ and character?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Restricting insurance by states is puppy shit in terms of restrictions



It is??? What would happen if every state had its own requirements for toothpaste just as they have their own requirements for health insurance??

You demonstrate what the OP said, that liberals lack the IQ to understand how capitalist health care would work.


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 2, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > This works on the same principle as nineteenth century markets. No restrictions, so prices were guaranteed to be lower and lower.
> ...



I am sory , but those antitrust laws have not stopped medical consolidation to become ubiquitous over the last years. 

google the following article "Healthcare consolidation to cause massive inflation".

So while I agree on the fact that having a free market will help on the long run, some stricter measures must be taken to ensure that conditions akin to perfect competition are in place in the healthcare market : 
- High number of buyers and sellers - break up of monopolies
- Perfect information - Full disclosure of hospital prices and quality.

It is clear that these conditions have not existed in the last 40 years. Else the USA would not have the most expensive healthcare system in the world.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 2, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > Restricting insurance by states is puppy shit in terms of restrictions
> ...



Ed, I agree with your support of federal regulation here over states rights even if it is a liberal reading of the constitution.

Quit calling folks names when we agree.  I do not want ppl to think those who support streamined federal regulation over a fifty state system are jerks.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 2, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Ed, I agree with your support of federal regulation here over states rights even if it is a liberal reading of the constitution.



too stupid by 100% as usual. Republicans support free trade and so did the commerce clause of the Constitution.

See why we say a liberal will be slow??


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 2, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, I agree with your support of federal regulation here over states rights even if it is a liberal reading of the constitution.
> ...



So you sau the states do not have the right to set their own regulations on healthcare?  How about emissions?  Fire safety?  Marriage?  Slavery?  Abortion?

Watch it with them slow remarks Mr confused by 3 questions


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 2, 2013)

Stupid Question.


Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME

Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ - CNN.com

Liberals and atheists smarter? Intelligent people have values novel in human evolutionary history, study finds

March 2010 Social Psychology Quarterly
Social Psychology Quarterly
------

Intelligence Study Links Low I.Q. To Prejudice, Racism, Conservatism

*Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

*Psychological Science


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 3, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> So you sau the states do not have the right to set their own regulations on healthcare?  How about emissions?  Fire safety?  Marriage?  Slavery?  Abortion?



dear, your use of English is so sloppy you have no ability to communicate and so are slow, very slow.  States obviously do regulate health care so does that mean, to your way of thinking,  they have the right or merely exercise the  right despite not technically having the right? And, those options are different from whether they should  exercise the right. Do you have any idea what question you really want to ask and what you would do with the answer once you got it.  I'm 100% sure you have no idea so your debates, as always,  cant possibly lead anywhere.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 3, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Stupid Question.
> 
> 
> Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives? - TIME
> ...



I of course am devastated to find that liberal authorities have conclusively  demonstrated that conservatives are stupid. Before I commit suicide over a lifetime wasted promulgating stupid conservative ideas  I wonder if you would be kind enough to present the most substantive example of a conservative/libertarian stupid idea.

My life is on your hands, and I expect to survive the experience without effort. You on the other hand won't be able to present an example and will survive too but in body only because as a liberal you lack the IQ to comprehend your intellectual death.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 3, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



You honestly are confused by that and go around calling ppl slow all day?

So you think the states just should not regulate healthcare?

Do you think the states should have the power to regulate abortion?

How about emissions?  Should liberal republican california govenors have the power to force cars not to burn leaded gas?

What about fire safety regulations? It is a pain to have to make things California compliant.

What about gun laws? Do you want states to regulate what a well regulated militia means?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 3, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> So you think the states just should not regulate healthcare?



Republicans since Jefferson have favored free trade among the states. Liberalisn as regards trade was a major shortcoming of the Articles. You may be the only person in the world not to know that


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 3, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



dear, we have a federalist system where power is shared between fed and states on 1000 issues. Do you know why you are asking about how it should be shared as regards 1000 different issues??? NOtice how you must evade every question that is asked of you. That must tell you something about your IQ?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 3, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



Ed, I have an answer to each of those questions....if you do not I suppose that is ok.

So your opinion on healthcare is states DO have the right to regulate it but SHOULD NOT?   as a system of fifty seperate regulatory systems is inefficient.  Interesting.

How about abortion?  50 different laws or just one nationwide law?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 4, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Stupid Question.
> ...



95% of your posts. Do I need to copy them for you, or can you just  go back and read them?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 4, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



you say conservatism is mistaken but you are afraid to  present your most substantive example. What does your fear tell you about the liberal IQ and character??


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 4, 2013)




----------



## dblack (Jun 4, 2013)

Go for it. Give the state control over your health care.

Dumbasses.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 5, 2013)




----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Go for it. Give the state control over your health care.
> 
> Dumbasses.



well, the state had control of everything in China; then they switched to capitalism and now they are getting rich as opposed to starving to death in the millions!!

A simple lesson that escapes the liberal mind. For the liberal science does not matter one bit, they are anti-rational true believers.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 5, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Go for it. Give the state control over your health care.
> ...



China is becoming very like the US - the rich get richer and poor get homeless because the rich forced them out of their homes so they could use the land to build vast empty cities.

EDUCATE YOURSELF.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 5, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> China is becoming very like the US -



this is true, not only  is starvation down to almost nothing
from 5 million a year or so under liberalism, but they are buying as many cars now as we do in America.

In fact, since the Republicans introduced capitalism there in 1980 world poverty has been cut in half!!

Liberals are anti scieince and anti-rational so have no guilt about the millions who starved to death under their policies.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 5, 2013)

In a sad way I was introduced to a capitalistic healthcare system.  The mother in law's rat terrier was not eating.  Vet visit and bill one a month ago.  No real diagnosis but better food and some stool softener.  

It did not get better.  After letting another paycheck roll through she takes the yappie thing back in.  They wanna do x-rays.  She requests and actually gets an estimate and takes the dog home no x-rays.  Well after a night of puking she takes the dog back in and pays for x-rays.  

TUMOR!  and a decent size one blocking some intestines.  

Now when my old man had cancer chemo lengthened his life by a bit under the old Eisenhower era socialist system.  But with this dog on the open market the mother in law had to think about tests and biopsies then treatment costs.  

Well, it PROBABLY was not going to work and this yappie dog was 9 years old so she drug.her feet a few nights to analyze the cost vs chances of success.

Then last week had the pup creamated.  It WAS the responsible thing to do financially after all according to the capitalist death panel


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> In a sad way I was introduced to a capitalistic healthcare system.  The mother in law's rat terrier was not eating.  Vet visit and bill one a month ago.  No real diagnosis but better food and some stool softener.
> 
> It did not get better.  After letting another paycheck roll through she takes the yappie thing back in.  They wanna do x-rays.  She requests and actually gets an estimate and takes the dog home no x-rays.  Well after a night of puking she takes the dog back in and pays for x-rays.
> 
> ...



can you say what your point is????


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 6, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> In a sad way I was introduced to a capitalistic healthcare system.  The mother in law's rat terrier was not eating.  Vet visit and bill one a month ago.  No real diagnosis but better food and some stool softener.
> 
> It did not get better.  After letting another paycheck roll through she takes the yappie thing back in.  They wanna do x-rays.  She requests and actually gets an estimate and takes the dog home no x-rays.  Well after a night of puking she takes the dog back in and pays for x-rays.
> 
> ...



The vet has every right to expect to be paid but the other side of that coin is that the degree of care and treatment is often dependent on how much money we have in our checking account. 

Our current socialist system, EMTALA is only slightly better than nothing and, in spite of romney's lies to the contrary, a lot of people die for lack of health care. 

ACA will require most of us to pay for our own health care insurance. IMO, that's the way it should be.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> ACA will require most of us to pay for our own health care insurance. IMO, that's the way it should be.



most?? you mean except for the 110 million, and growing,  who get Medicaid Medicare and Schip!

ACA is no help at all since it is not capitalistic, people are not spending their own money and providers are not competing with price and quality for that money! 

If you had more than a liberal IQ you would know why the price of computers goes down and the price of health care goes up!!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 6, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > ACA will require most of us to pay for our own health care insurance. IMO, that's the way it should be.
> ...



Jesus H Fucking Krist, just shut up already because you just keep getting every single fact about ACA wrong and you will just keep repeating the same shit because you are just plain stupid. 

Have you noticed that even the anti-ObamaCare folx know you're wrong?

I do give you credit for leaving your idiotic claim that 'China reduced world poverty by 40%' or whatever it was. Now, LEARN from your own stupidity.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Have you noticed that even the anti-ObamaCare folx know you're wrong?



if wrong please say why or admit as a liberal you lack the IQ to do so



Luddly Neddite said:


> I do give you credit for leaving your idiotic claim that 'China reduced world poverty by 40%' or whatever it was.



too stupid!!! I didn't leave it nor did the UN and others who use it widely to show that the fastest possible way to eliminate poverty on earth is through Republican capitalism as China just demonstrated by eliminating 40% of world poverty simply by switching to Republican captialism.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 6, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Have you noticed that even the anti-ObamaCare folx know you're wrong?
> ...



Its not just that you're stupid. 

You're also a coward, too afraid to replay to an entire post so you cherry pick and pretend you don't see the rest. You're just an ignorant little troll, a one trick pony and that's all you'll ever be.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



please point out your best example of where conservatism/libertarianism  is mistaken or admit you lack the IQ to engage on substance. Sorry


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I do give you credit for leaving your idiotic claim that 'China reduced world poverty by 40%' or whatever it was. Now, LEARN from your own stupidity.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UABa09QsvM]Fareed Zakaria GPS - What in the World? Global poverty paradox - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 7, 2013)

CultureCitizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



US health care costs as much as it does #1 because it is the best in the world and #2 because the consumer doesn't pay for it. Competition won't help control costs because the companies that end up paying for your gall bladder surgery are more or less guaranteed a profit margin and 10% of $5,000 is a hell of a lost nicer than 10% of $1,000.
The average citizen is provided health care insurance as part of their benefits package at work and your employer more or less has to pay what the insurance company charges to keep their staff. It doesn't impact their bottom line much at any rate because their competitors have the same cost and everyone simply passes the cost along to their customers, and General Electric enjoys a steady profit margin. Again.... 10% of $1,000,000 fills your pocket deeper than 10% of $50,000.

So... Doctors can practice cover your ass medicine and charge your insurance company five grand for a one thousand dollar procedure and you don't bat an eye.

*Because you never see the damned bill!*


----------



## CultureCitizen (Jun 7, 2013)

Ernie S. said:


> US health care costs as much as it does #1 because it is the best in the world and #2 because the consumer doesn't pay for it. Competition won't help control costs because the companies that end up paying for your gall bladder surgery are more or less guaranteed a profit margin and 10% of $5,000 is a hell of a lost nicer than 10% of $1,000.
> The average citizen is provided health care insurance as part of their benefits package at work and your employer more or less has to pay what the insurance company charges to keep their staff. It doesn't impact their bottom line much at any rate because their competitors have the same cost and everyone simply passes the cost along to their customers, and General Electric enjoys a steady profit margin. Again.... 10% of $1,000,000 fills your pocket deeper than 10% of $50,000.
> 
> So... Doctors can practice cover your ass medicine and charge your insurance company five grand for a one thousand dollar procedure and you don't bat an eye.
> ...



#1 : Sory , but USA doesn't have the best healthcare in the world.
Here's a chart to prove such claim







#2 , agreed. In order to have some competition the insurance scheme would have to change, instead of medical insurance a "saving scheme" should be put into place. This would allow people to do medical shoping and find the doctor / hospital which gives the best prices. 

There are other alternatives , of course. I am particular fond of the japanese health care system :


> patient accepting responsibility for 30% of these costs while the government pays the remaining 70%.  ...
> Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage
> People without insurance through employers can participate in a national health insurance programme administered by local governments
> Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan]Health care system in Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and a chart just to prove how cost efficient the system is :


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jun 7, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > In a sad way I was introduced to a capitalistic healthcare system.  The mother in law's rat terrier was not eating.  Vet visit and bill one a month ago.  No real diagnosis but better food and some stool softener.
> ...



Ed, you doing ok?  

1. an open market system rations healthcare by some scale of cost / ability to pay / benefit.  You can even call it a death panel.

2. even though health insurance for your dog does exist it is a less regulated, more capitalist system than we have had since the 1950's.

It is terrifying to think what if I had a kid with that problem and we had a healthcare system like the dogs do.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 7, 2013)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



I never said "conservatism is mistaken". I said your posts are. *That's your delusion, that you believe you somehow represent something.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 7, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...




Just like Special Ed's been parroting over and over again, if we had a republican capitalist healthcare system, every American could save $5,000 a year.

Of course, if you or a family member had a problem that you couldn't afford, que sera sera.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 7, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



so you are a conservative?


----------

