# If the US healthcare system is the best and socialism is the worst



## Decepticon (Mar 20, 2012)

Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???


Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.


Success is self-evident CONZ.
Point to all the demonstrations in socialist coutries DEMANDING they change to our system.
Point to the cost savings of the U.S. system.
Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



If socialist countries have a more copacetic form of healthcare....what's keeping you here?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



You can't be this stupid....


----------



## uptownlivin90 (Mar 20, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



 Why not?


----------



## regent (Mar 20, 2012)

In a democracy often the laws have to be compromises, and the result is programs that reflect those compromises. Usually, once the law is in place it begins to be altered, added to, and gradually improved. How many times has Social Security been changed since 1935? If this health care law hangs in there, over the years it will be gradually improved and may become a program that equals other nation's health care. To write a good law the first time is almost unAmerican, and reflects badly on the party out of power.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 20, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Statistically speaking, the US pays more per person for Health Care than any other country in the world and with the exception of cancer ( If you have cancer, your chances of survival is higher in the US than anywhere else ) we receive less benefit. 

So we pay more for less. 

Only an idiot would find that favorable.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance?



Probably because they're socialists.  The real question is their system sustainable.  Based on the recent flurry of socialist country bailouts, it would appear there is a fundamental problem with a socialist approach to government, including healthcare.  You see, they've run out of other people's money.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Mar 20, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Problem here is you address the symptoms not the cause.  That's like saying the problem of poverty is lack of money.

_That's _idiotic.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Untrue.

Judging by life span, the United States is number one.

"Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently maintain that other countries have superior health care we should use as models for U.S. reform. They argue that many countries spend far less on health care than the United States yet seem to enjoy better health outcomes. 

However, these claims fall apart upon careful examination. Compared to the rest of the world, the U.S. has top-tier survival rates, choice of providers, and very short wait times. It turns out that the statistics critics cite either are incomplete or compare apples to oranges.


*Life Expectancy.* Another frequently cited statistic is that according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the U.S. ranks 18th among 30 world democracies in life expectancy. However, health care is not the only factor in life expectancy. *If you correct for two causes of death not directly related to health carehomicides and automobile accidentsthe U.S. actually rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.*"
Inaccurate Grounds for Calling U.S. Health Care Inferior

Just one more example of Alexander Pope's rule...

"A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."


----------



## Vidi (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Absolutely false.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Based on life expectancy alone, the US ranks 36th.

If you correct for homicides and car accidents? Really? Because Japan ( the real #1, though the earthquake/tsunami/nuclear incident will most likely knock them out of that spot ) does have homicide or car accidents?

Or are you saying Americans are just far more reckless driving and far more murderous than the rest of the world do lets not count those deaths?

Either way, it doesnt paint a very good picture of us, does it?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 20, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



At least I was willing to address something related to the actual topic. 

Care to back up your claims?


----------



## California Girl (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



Britain is trying to overhaul its system... because its 'socialist' system is fucked. But please, don't let reality bite you in the ass.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Vidi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



What I am saying is that you have fallen victim to the anti-American propaganda.

Have you queried the sources for the link you provided?

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data &#8220;is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research&#8221; and when they couldn&#8217;t find data, they &#8220;developed [data] through a variety of techniques.&#8221; WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro&#8217;s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political *WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, *as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, &#8220;World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld&#8217;sHealth Systems,&#8221; press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.

		1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which* 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of &#8220;equality!&#8221;*
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the *United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: &#8220;the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.&#8221; *Therefore a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US.
	This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the &#8216;expensive&#8217; treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate.  All are common.
	And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone.

Grow up.
Wise up.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 20, 2012)

Most medical advances and innovation come from the US. That's something we really need to consider... that innovation is created because we have a profit driven sector.


----------



## The T (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


 
I understand that Canada is as well...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Good to have some actual expertise.


----------



## DaGoose (Mar 20, 2012)

> Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. *Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent*. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
> 
> *Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage*. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.
> 
> Nor is America's international reputation in health care as high as many Americans boast it to be. "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country... which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care," Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So. But according to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, *only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own*.



The U.S. has the best health care system in the world


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


you think England is socialist? you think germany is socialist? you think france is socialist? you think canada is socialist?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Make a point.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Most medical advances and innovation come from the US. That's something we really need to consider... that innovation is created because we have a profit driven sector.


advances in medical technology and actual health care are not the same thing.

GE makes MRI machines, but they dont provide any health care services. 
AstraZeneca makes pharmaceuticals, but they dont provide any health care. 

so your argument of thinking that if you make health care a public service that innovation wont happen is false.

look at the military, the military is a public service yet Boeing is private they bring innovation and technology.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

DaGoose said:


> > Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. *Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent*. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
> >
> > *Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage*. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.
> >
> ...



You'er kidding, right?

"The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care
Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbituxa proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the bodyand Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoins insurance didnt:* she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement.* Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, *covered by insurance companiesin the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.*
When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo

...people like the elderly woman who* needed vascular surgery for a major artery in her abdomen and was promised prompt care by one of the most senior bureaucrats in the government, who never called back. *Her doctor told her shes going to die, Baker remembers. So Timely got her surgery in a couple of days, in Washington State. Then there was the *eight-year-old badly in need of a procedure to help correct her deafness. After watching her surgery get bumped three times, *her parents called Timely.
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


all those countries are democracy's yet the provide health care as a public service. none of those democratic countries are making a move to the american system. 

so it is not only socialist countries such as Cuba and China who have better state run health care, it is democratic nations as well.

if the american system was so grand, every country would adopt it..... so tell us why they arent.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



First, stop hiding behind the Liberal "us" and simply say tell "me"....
....don't be afraid to stand on your own two feet.

We're the richest nation. We have the best heathcare in the world.
Their standard of living and medical expectations aren't as high as ours.
The spend huge amounts of money on cradle-to-grave styles and you see the results in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland.
Socialized medicine is fine for minor ailments, but if major and expensive, you don't get it.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): tells Brits if their life is worth living- *in actual dollars and cents.* As the NYTimes states, its job is to develop a *standard method of rationing.* NICE has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about* $22,750, to save six months of a citizens life.*
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html)

So, *the average one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is worth way more than a Brits life!*(New York City Real Estate | MNS is Real Impact Real Estate)
That the essence of your socialized medicine.

So, it has concluded that if you have breast cancer, the drug Tykerb, shown to delay the progression of the disease, is worth more than you are despite Glaxos offer to pay for the first 12 weeks of treatment.
U.K. Says Tykerb Isnt Worth Cost, Even With 12 Free Weeks - Health Blog - WSJ

Socialism is based on the collective, the herd, whereas our system...until recently...honored the life and wellbeing of individuals.
Which do you want?


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Most medical advances and innovation come from the US. That's something we really need to consider... that innovation is created because we have a profit driven sector.


Source it.
American medial advances are from government funded sources and research
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF
^55% of the drugs developed in America are researched/funded solely by the government
^Only 22% of new drugs from the private market have therapeutic value.
^67% of the most important/used drugs were funded/developed solely or partial by the government
^The most successful drug companies are ones who use the most government research and drugs.
^The government provides almost all the basic research into medical breakthroughs
^53% of private market medical advancements have little to no therapeutic value another 31% have slight therapeutic value.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> > Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?
> 
> 
> 
> Britain is trying to overhaul its system... because its 'socialist' system is fucked. But please, don't let reality bite you in the ass.



They aren't changing the socialist nature of the system (which costs 2 times less then Americans despite having higher health outcomes)

*Quote tags fixed.*


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> We're the richest nation.


No there are a dozen countries with higher GDP per capital, and the rest of the 1st world has higher living standards then America



PoliticalChic said:


> We have the best heathcare in the world.


Only if you ignore all the data and statistics


PoliticalChic said:


> Their standard of living and medical expectations aren't as high as ours.


Their expectations might not be has high as our but their standards of living and health outcomes are higher then ours


PoliticalChic said:


> The spend huge amounts of money on cradle-to-grave styles and you see the results in Greece, Portugal, Italy and Ireland.


Of which two of those having higher standards of living, and of 3 are hindered by not having their own country, and 1 isn't a first world country but is experiencing GDP growth of 5% plus.

It would be nice if when you posted next you posted something that wasn't a complete lie.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


the average income in Britian is 2600 pounds or approx $41,000
Income in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
average earning in the US were $46,000
Income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
not exactly the huge difference

so now youre gonna use NYC, which is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in as a comparison? thats a bad comparison.... but if you want more proof, it actually costs more to live in London than NYC. Housing in Toyko is much higher too, and the also have universal health care as well.

Top 50 Highest Cost of Living Cities In The World

out system does not honor the individual life, its values profit. until the health care law was passed, it was legal for insurance companies to drop your coverage if you became too expensive or got sick. tell me how that honor individual life.

the essence of universal health care to provide equal access of health care services to all people no matter how much they make or how much they are worth. thus everyone gets equal treatment. the way the current system works is that those with the most money get access to better services than those with the least. 

if you really value human and individual life so much, why are you advocating for different levels of care to different classes of society? is a human life really worth less than the value of a dollar?

Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind
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 &#8211; 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market &#8211; were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years.

but i guess youre ok with denying people health care...... that makes you a real christian


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

JFC dittoheads- Socialism is always democratic, Cuba and China are COMMUNIST. The EU calls itself social demoratic just to avoid hearing a pile of Pubcrappe from you moron/Cold War dinosaurs...

   The Uk has its Tories who are second only to Pubs as stupid greedy a-holes, followed now by Canada's Conservatives, far back. Major parties, Pub are hands down champs.

   Our health care costs twice as much as anyone else's. Pure Pub default IDIOCY. You are sorely misled- end of story.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > We're the richest nation.
> ...



Your ignorance prevents you from realizing the truth.

Amusing how you Leftists will do cartwheels to prevent having to deal with the truth....for example, to contend that 'everything you say is a lie,' you have to explain why my posts are linked, especially to sources like the NYTimes.....

Here's more:


a. One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes *reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.* It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.
In "The Business of Health", Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out *intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.*
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno | On Freedom

b) How about the *result of having food*? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: *obesity.  Is this the fault of poor healthcare?*

From a NYTimes article about Sicko, and Cuba:
Because they dont have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking, he said. And *they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity,* but theyre not starving, either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html

c) *Infant mortality.* So, Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate? On January 2, 2009 they announced 4.7 out of every 1,000 for 2008. Seem believable? Well, maybe the number, but calculated in 48 hours? It takes the US about two years to get all the data for our. *One reason that Cuba has a low infant mortality, and the corresponding high life expectancy, is because they induce abortion at the first sign of possible trouble with a fetus.* Cuba's annual induced abortion rate persistently ranks among the highest in the world, and abortion plays a prominent role in Cuban fertility regulation.
The Persistence of Induced Abortion in Cuba: Exploring the Notion of an []Abortion Culture[] - B[]langer - 2009 - Studies in Family Planning - Wiley Online Library

And, of course, there are *a variety of ways that infant mortality statistics are measured. *While 40% of Americas infant mortality rate is due to reporting of infants who die on the day of their birth, *many countries dont register such deaths at all. *Other countries* require specific size* (Switzerland, 30 cm) and *weights *(Austria and Germany, 500 gms) to be listed as having been born.
Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Rarely reported in comparing infant mortality rates it the negative effect of *very pre-term babies, whose death rate is far higher than full term.  *When comparing the US infant mortality rate to such category-stars as in this *NYTimes *report of 11/4/09:
If the United States could match Swedens prematurity rate, the new report said, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in *not mentioning that race* is the reason:

The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly detailed report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze t*he most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. *Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our *higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. *Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon


So you see, once you know more about a situation, it is hardly as simple as simple minded folks think it is...
...do you realize how stupid you sound claiming said links are "lies"?

Does that light over your head flashing "Idiot" keep you awake at night?


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Yes, we have the best health care in the world, if you're a BILLIONNAIRE. 

   Otherwise, UNTIL THIS YEAR, thanks to ACA, insurers could throw you off for technicalities, or your charges could drive you into bankruptcy. 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people WITH insurance) and 45k DYING because they had no insurance- ALL UNKNOWN in any other modern country. AND a huge toll on our global competitiveness...

  And the traffic accident stuff is total blather...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

The T said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



And Germany.
Their experience is like Maine, Tennessee and Mass.  Every time you make it free you bankrupt the state.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Yes, we have the best health care in the world, if you're a BILLIONNAIRE.
> 
> Otherwise, UNTIL THIS YEAR, thanks to ACA, insurers could throw you off for technicalities, or your charges could drive you into bankruptcy. 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people WITH insurance) and 45k DYING because they had no insurance- ALL UNKNOWN in any other modern country. AND a huge toll on our global competitiveness...
> 
> And the traffic accident stuff is total blather...



I've noticed you remain totally consistent: never correct.

This should be your motto: Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


or not...

Britain healthcare: British fear 'American-style' healthcare system - Los Angeles Times
"We will not be selling off the NHS, we will not be moving towards an insurance scheme, we will not introduce an American-style private system," Prime Minister David Cameron emphatically told a group of healthcare workers in a nationally televised address last week.

got any links to back up your claims.....


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

"Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality."

Because blacks and other poor WORKERS have crap health care here, dimwit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



1. There was no groundswell to change healthcare until the Left decided that they could create a crisis, and certain dolts would fall for it....(if the shoe fits)...


	while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own  health care than with  the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
Health Beat: The Quality Question

The most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll (June 21) finds that* 83 percent *of Americans are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the quality of their health care, and* 81 percent *are similarly satisfied with their health insurance.

They have good reason to be. If you're diagnosed with cancer, you have a better chance of surviving it in the United States than anywhere else, according to the Concord Five Continent Study. And the World Health Organization ranked the United States No. 1 out of 191 countries for being responsive to patients' needs, including providing timely treatments and a choice of doctors.
Defend Your Healthcare

Among insured Americans, *82 percent rate their health coverage positively.* Among insured people who've experienced a serious or chronic illness or injury in their family in the last year, *an enormous 91 percent are satisfied with their care, and 86 percent are satisfied with their coverage. *
ABCNEWS.com : U.S. Health Care Concerns Increase

2. Everyone in the United States had healthcare.
Everyone.

3. The small percentage of chronically uninsured could be taken care of via government. So, ask yourself why it was necessary to destroy a system that worked well for the large majority...
....c'mon....you can figure it out.

4. The essential different is whether one believes in the free market, or, as you do, that bureaucrats will do a better job...think Motor Vehicle Department, or Post Office.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> "Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality."
> 
> Because blacks and other poor WORKERS have crap health care here, dimwit.



One could almost believe that you invented stupidity, rather than simply perfected it.


One factor contributing to the U.S.'s infant mortality rate is that blacks have intractably high infant mortality rates -- irrespective of age, education, socioeconomic status and so on. No one knows why. 

Neither medical care nor discrimination can explain it: Hispanics in the U.S. have lower infant mortality rates than either blacks or whites. Give Switzerland or Japan our ethnically diverse population and see how they stack up on infant mortality rates.
A Statistical Analysis of Maritime Unemployment Rates, 1946-1948. Just Kidding, More Liberal Lies About National Healthcare! - HUMAN EVENTS


----------



## Oddball (Mar 20, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


Yes, he really is.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


#2 is a bold faced lie.
Americans Without Health Insurance Rise to 52 Million on Job Loss, Expense - Bloomberg

52 million americans is 1/6th of the population.

the free market made health insurance costs rise 14% annually since 1980. that is what your free market has done to health care.

In addition to higher health spending, the United States is increasing its spending faster than other countries. Exhibit 3 illustrates the trend in health spending among five countries. The United States&#8217; higher growth rate in the 1990s and the 2000s ensured that it spent far more than other selected countries. While the United States had a slower rate of growth in the early 1990s, the late 1980s and 2000s were defined by an accelerated growth rate. 
Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

yet another failed argument.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 20, 2012)

DaGoose said:


> > Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. *Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent*. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
> >
> > *Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage*. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.
> >
> ...



Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were discussing reality, not what people 'believe' about heathcare. 

 Twit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



*2. Everyone in the United States had healthcare.
Everyone.*


Absolutely totally without a doubt true....

....bet your house on it?
Or you cardboard box...whatever...


You went to a government school....didn't you?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


Speaking of bold faced  lies...

How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many  of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?

Your stale "52 million Americans" taking point is pure bullshit, s0n.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



This reminds me of an interesting conversation I had in a local NHS surgery when I was waiting for a friend. Got talking to some woman who was 'pitying' me because Americans didn't have 'free' healthcare. I said 'your healthcare isn't 'free', other people pay for it. Maybe, if you had to pay for it, you wouldn't have the enormous problems and you could get the treatment you need when you need it instead of having to wait in line for it.'.... An NHS doctor overheard the conversation and he agreed with me. LOL


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 20, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



He is a Liberal....facts, data, reality....none have any moment with him...or her.

That, plus the damage that years of filling his gas tank as indicated by his avi....well, you know what those organic fumes do.....


----------



## California Girl (Mar 20, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Do we have some population explosion that has been unreported? Because just a year ago, it was 30 million, then 40.... now 52! Wow.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Countries ARE having to tinker with their health care programs- PURELY because of the SECOND Pub Great World Depression...dittoheads haven't heard about that LOL!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


so now bloomberg is a liar?
guess you didnt even read the link. but then again you wing nuts are big on facts these days.
The U.S. Census Bureau said in September that the number of people without coverage rose to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008. Forty-nine million Americans reported spending 10 percent or more of their income on insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs last year, according to the Commonwealth Fund study. The research was based on telephone interviews conducted from July 14 to Nov. 30 with more than 4,000 adults aged 19 or older.

what 25 year old making $35k annually can afford 300-400 a month for health insurance? what family of 4 making $50k annually can afford 700-1000 a month for insurance.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

The great majority of uninsured Americans are POOR WORKERS. A great way to keep people on welfare, dumbass dupes of greedy health corps and doctors...


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



And we are expected to accept a rightwing fruitcake blog as the definitive article on this subject?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?pagewanted=all

Health-care cuts in Britain: draconian? - CSMonitor.com

And your article merely says Britains are scared of changes, changes necessitated because their system is way too expensive.
You are rapidly becoming Number One Asswipe on this site.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 20, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Yes!  Shut the fuck up and enjoy your fruitcake!


----------



## DaGoose (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> DaGoose said:
> 
> 
> > > Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. *Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent*. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
> ...



What did I say to deserve being called a name? 

*What people believe is the major driving force behind the changes* in health care, SS and Medicare. Why do you think Ryan's Medicare plan failed so miserably the last time? 

*The reality is* that you will have to get the American people to believe in whatever changes you want to make or as sure as what happened to Ryan, it will fail.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



This debate utterly misses the point. The debate over whether we should adopt socialism has nothing to do with outcomes - at least not in the sense of how well specific services are rendered. You could prove to me with drop-dead factual accuracy that socialism is a better platform for providing health care (or car care, or pet care, or anything else you might be excited about) and it wouldn't change my policy preferences one iota.

The question really comes down to what we consider to be the purpose of government. Some of us want government to focus it's efforts on protecting us from thugs and cheats - and otherwise leave us free to live our lives as we see fit. 

But there is another school of thought, one that believes government can, and should, solve virtually every problem we face as a society. That's the mindset that favors socialism. It envisions government as the be-all, end-all of human civilization. Every problem is, potentially, a government problem - likewise every decision we make as individuals is subject to government oversight.

The latter is what we are rejecting when we turn down proposals to socialize health care. It might not be the most 'efficient'. But efficiency isn't the only priority.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your ignorance prevents you from realizing the truth.[/quote]
Im not sure how me pointing out you making half a dozen lies and stupid comments makes me ignorant. Perhaps it is because you have an overactive ego and cant accept that you were wrong and brainwashed. Iot is very telling of the person you are that you reject reality just because it doesn't fit with your incorrect view of how reality should be



PoliticalChic said:


> Amusing how you Leftists will do cartwheels to prevent having to deal with the truth....for example, to contend that 'everything you say is a lie,' you have to explain why my posts are linked, especially to sources like the NYTimes.....


Yep the whole world is liberal bias all the information on health care is just lies from the massive liberal media that controls everything. Every fact and statistics is incorrect because its liberal. /sarcasm How long do you plan to deny reality?



PoliticalChic said:


> a. One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes *reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.*


Lets look at those factors. 1) Europeans drink more alcohol, 2) Europeans are older, 3) Europeans smoke more tobacco. If we were to actually adjust health care systems for lifestyle choices we would find that Americans health care system is even shittier then we thought.



PoliticalChic said:


> We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in *not mentioning that race* is the reason:


I see so its black peoples fault


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, we have the best health care in the world, if you're a BILLIONNAIRE.
> ...


Name one thing he said that is not correct. I find it funny how people like you are 100% ignorant and then cry when others try to educate you...


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Do we have some population explosion that has been unreported? Because just a year ago, it was 30 million, then 40.... now 52! Wow.


Your inability to reconnection that the recession has caused massive unemployment and left millions more unable to afford health insurance is telling of your intellectual capacity


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. There was no groundswell to change healthcare until the Left decided that they could create a crisis, and certain dolts would fall for it....(if the shoe fits)...


Wrong again.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/10-29-07_IHPPressRelease.pdf?section=4056
==1) American's want their health care system changed more than two times the amount  that people in "socialized medicine" countries do.
34% of Americans want health care system completely changed
48% what huge fundamental changes
Only 16% want minor changes




PoliticalChic said:


> while the numbers clearly show that people are happier with their own health care than with the system as a whole, there is no dimension with which their happier than the quality of care they personally receivea mere 15 percent complain about the quality of care they receive..(New England Journal of Medicine)
> Health Beat: The Quality Question


That is because they dont realize they are paying 2-3times more and getting worse health outcomes




PoliticalChic said:


> 2. Everyone in the United States had healthcare.
> Everyone.


Nope dumbass 15-19% lack health insurance, they cannot go in and get medicine, they can't go to a psych office and get counseling etc etc.



PoliticalChic said:


> 3. The small percentage of chronically uninsured could be taken care of via government. So, ask yourself why it was necessary to destroy a system that worked well for the large majority...
> ....c'mon....you can figure it out.


Because it costs 3 times more then other systems despite being shittier


PoliticalChic said:


> 4. The essential different is whether one believes in the free market, or, as you do, that bureaucrats will do a better job...think Motor Vehicle Department, or Post Office.


Heres how much the free market works when it takes over the DMV
2009 New Jersey Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
--^New Jerseys DMV privatization failed, socialization made it better Privatized DMV leads to poor service, under paid employees, a lack of anti-fraud policies, and long wait times/lines.

Heres more examples of the free market failing

http://tcf.org/media-center/pdfs/pr46/12badideas.pdf
^Privatized SS in Chile and UK resulted in administration cost increasing by 13-20 times.

You&#8217;re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

BBC News - Ken Clarke privatises Birmingham Prison amid union fury
^In UK privatized prisons cost 5% more even though private prisons don't provide workers with adequate benefits or pay.

http://insurance.mo.gov/reports/lossratio/index.htm
^National loss percentages for insurance.
Work comp/disaster (unemployment) has a loss percentage of 33%
Home owners insurance has a loss percentage of 40%
(Has around a dozen different types of insurances and their loss ratios.)
^
http://www.coffi.org/pubs/Summaries/NFIP Summary revised Sept 26 2005-1.pdf
^The federal flood insurance (home insurance) program runs administrative costs at around
7%.
^
Budget
^Administrative costs for government unemployment insurance (workers comp) is less than 5%.

http://mainstreetalliance.org/wordp...of-CAA-literature-review-final-10-04-2010.pdf
^The Clean air act amendments of 1990 saved the country a net of 510 billion dollars over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act used regulations to reduce 5 pollutants by 41%. The benefit cost ration is 4-1.
^The stratospheric Ozone protection act saved the country a net of 510 billion over 20 years (or around 25 billion a year). The act reduced emissions of CFC's. And its benefit cost ratio is 20-1
^The original Clean air act from 1970 saves a net of 600 billion a year having a benift cost ratio of 42-1
^Major new regulations starting in 1992-2002 saved the economy a total of 150 billion dollars in ten years.
^Environmental regulations lead to the creation 1.3million jobs over ten years.
^Costs of regulations were exaggerated estimates for Acid and rain cap and trade said that the costs would be between 2-4 billion when in reality it was 800 million or 60-120% less. 

http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/green_economics/CERES_PERI_Feb11.pdf
^2010 EPA air regulations are estimated to create 300,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.
^Since 1970 for every dollar spent on clean air regulation compliances $4-$8 dollars are created in economic benefits.

Electric deregulation fails to live up to promises as bills soar - USATODAY.com
^States that deregulated their energy sectors saw costs increase 30% more than states that regulated their energy sectors.
Economic Failures of Private Water Systems | Food & Water Watch
^In America privately owned water utilities cost on average 27% more than their government owned counterparts.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 20, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


your article about Britain is from 2010, guess all those changes they said were gonna happen never did. so you were wrong. 

and really... the Christian Science Monitor.... wow i wont even go there with that being a "reputable source"


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

Gov't is helluva lot better than private companies at a LOT of stuff. IE, only 17% of charter schools are better than public ones. Private jails SUCK. Private health care is an over priced mess, and corruption and greed are all over the private sector. thank god for the LAW...also gov't.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 20, 2012)

The CS Monitor is a highly respected source of REAL journalism, as opposed to the ENTIRE Pub propaganda Machine: Fox, Murdoch papers, Moonie papers, Rush, Beck, Savage, Rw blogs and "Institutes"- absolute CRAP for the dupes... The Examiner, Daily Caller, Heritage Inst., Wash. Times, Daily Mail, etc Pure BULLSHYTTE!


----------



## snakedoc (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...


Most of Europe and Greece have a kind of socialist or quasi socialist healthcare system that pays for pretty much everything getting people to give something like that up is next to impossible. The problem as Europe and Greece has shown is they are not sustainable  sooner or later the people paying into the system are out paced by those collecting from it and it goes deeper and deeper into the red until it has to be bailed out or collaspes.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Typical right wing dodge....you can't answer the man's questions because you'd have to admit defeat of your ideology...so you personally attack him.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance?
> ...



The "bailouts" can be tied directly to the chicanery of the likes of Goldman Sachs & company (who do you think sold Greece's viability to the EU?).  You see, it's all in the details.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



And pray tell, what is the "cause" according to you?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



I do wish you would do some honest, objective research before your fingers hit the keys, Cali girl.  Observe and learn from a 2009 TIME article:

How Does Britain's National Health Service Work? - TIME


What's happened in England is that th Tory's (their version of conservative/new conservative) party has finally gotten it's way...for now.  Whether the British people will stand for it remains to be seen in their next round of elections.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



For those of you interested in a more objective view, check this out from a 2009 TIME article:

How Does Britain's National Health Service Work? - TIME

The "exception" and NOT the "rule" in some cases where rulings are made to curtail expensive drugs for elderly, critically ill patients.....as opposed to the STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE of many health insurance companies in America to DENY healthcare coverage to ANY age of critically ill folk.  Just as Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2012)

clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 20, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


Not _*even*_ a good try at diverting from the questions...

*How many of the uninsured qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but haven't applied for it?

How many  of the uninsured are in America illegally?

How many of the uninsured are well off enough to pay for their medical costs out-of-pocket?*


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...


Im not sure how me pointing out you making half a dozen lies and stupid comments makes me ignorant. Perhaps it is because you have an overactive ego and cant accept that you were wrong and brainwashed. Iot is very telling of the person you are that you reject reality just because it doesn't fit with your incorrect view of how reality should be



PoliticalChic said:


> Amusing how you Leftists will do cartwheels to prevent having to deal with the truth....for example, to contend that 'everything you say is a lie,' you have to explain why my posts are linked, especially to sources like the NYTimes.....


Yep the whole world is liberal bias all the information on health care is just lies from the massive liberal media that controls everything. Every fact and statistics is incorrect because its liberal. /sarcasm How long do you plan to deny reality?



PoliticalChic said:


> a. One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes *reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values.*


Lets look at those factors. 1) Europeans drink more alcohol, 2) Europeans are older, 3) Europeans smoke more tobacco. If we were to actually adjust health care systems for lifestyle choices we would find that Americans health care system is even shittier then we thought.



PoliticalChic said:


> We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in *not mentioning that race* is the reason:


I see so its black peoples fault[/QUOTE]


I applaud your persistence and patience with the cornucopia of neocon/teabagger  informational myopia that springs from this Chic's keyboard.  Everytime you factually and logically disprove one of her talking points, she just moves the goal post....as the neocon/teabagger is often want to do.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. There was no groundswell to change healthcare until the Left decided that they could create a crisis, and certain dolts would fall for it....(if the shoe fits)...
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

snakedoc said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...




Wrong.  What screwed Greece's economy was having the likes  of Goldman Sach's fudge the books for it's admittance into the EU....and let's not forget all those American banks that mixed toxic packages of housing loans with their stable loans and then sold them on the international market.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

dblack said:


> clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.



Clearly YOU are the ONLY one declaring such an absurd notion.


----------



## dblack (Mar 20, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > clearly what we want is government controlling every aspect of our lives.
> ...



I'm just trying to go with the flow. Clearly, whatever the question, government is the answer. At least according to government.

Go team!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




There was no "diversion", YOU just don't like the FACTS, so now you try to distort the information:

1) Are you implying that there are hoards of people who qualify for Medicare/Medicaid but haven't applied?  Where's your proof of such an allegation?  And are you aware of the qualifications for application, and how those qualifications are measured in actual applications and acceptances?

2)  WTF does undocumented and illegal aliens have to do with health insurance with regards to those who are legal/born citizens who are WORKING but CANNOT afford decent healthcare?

3)  Are you implying that there are hoards of people who can pay for their own healthcare but "game" the system? Where's your proof of such an allegation?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 20, 2012)

dblack said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, you're just being an ass for the hell of it....either that or you crave attention but do not have the guts or the brains to engage in an honest debate on the issue.  So you'll be ignored for the irritant you attempt to be.  Adios.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Mar 20, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> [/b]Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???[/b]
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



Because those authoritarian nations are dictated by lunatic politicians ignorant to history or still living in the communist past.

I don't see US citizens running to socialist nations for their healthcare (unless they've been abducted by Michael Moore headed to Cuba on a banana boat) do you??

No, I see individuals from socialist nations (and third-world nations) come to the United States for healthcare...

Socialism doesn't provide the environment required to drive an individual to succeed. There is no "reward" for the doctor who is far better than the quack.... So why spend the time going the extra mile???


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 20, 2012)

In Germany they won't deny you coverage or not treat you just because you have a pre existing condition.

Health Insurers: We'll Deny Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions If Health Mandate Is Repealed | ThinkProgress


----------



## frazzledgear (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



It is hard to go back once you breed the population to be dependent on government.  Just look at Greece -bankrupt, keeps getting bailed out by the EU -passes a budget to try and get their unsustainable debt and out of control spending under control -but then doesn't stick to it.  And all because of the whiny ass, dependent thugs they deliberately bred who take to the streets vandalizing and torching public and private property apparently convinced this is how money is created.   

Going socialist means moving way to the left -and towards a far more totalitarian / authoritarian state.  One thing about that is it requires the very real loss of individual rights.  You can't have a more powerful government -which is required in the socialist state in order to carry out its socialist functions -without laying claim to the power and rights that belong to the individual.  It is easier to do in some countries where the population is or never was particularly free.  But once you make that move to the left -those wielding the power don't like the idea of giving it up and make sure there is no going back.  At least not peacefully.

What people like you insist on ignoring is the fact the outcome of the socialist is a foregone conclusion.  It will fail.  It always fails, it will always fail because it has a built-in fatal flaw and the only way to avoid that fatal flaw is to avoid socialism and communism entirely.  And all along the way it increases the level of human misery -it doesn't reduce it.

There is ONE major difference between a government run health care system and one in the private sector - and that is their primary goal and concern.  In the private sector, the primary concern is restoring the individual to as near normal as possible and improving the quality of life.  Your doctor doesn't consult some formula that calculates your likely remaining years, co-existing medical conditions and ability to return to contributing to society again.  Your doctor will only be concerned with whether what he/she can offer you in the form of treatment will HELP YOU or not.   Avoiding ending up in a wheelchair with the loss of independence is preventing a major downgrade in the quality of life and becoming wheelchair bound takes years off life expectancy which in the private sector system is considered a BAD THING.  

But under a government run system, the primary goal and concern becomes CUTTING COSTS.  Bean counters look where most of the money is going -and no surprise, treating sick people is more costly than treating healthy people -so they look to cut costs with the very people who NEED the system the most.  Whether the sickest will receive treatment that can possibly restore the individual to a more normal level or at least improve the quality of life -will depend on an actuarial table that takes into consideration age, co-existing conditions and the monetary value government assigns to that individual's life.  Even if denying the individual treatment that would improve the quality of their life shortens their life expectancy -it is tough shit.  Because the primary goal is COST -not quality of life.  So if the bean counter realizes even with treatment you aren't going to be going back to work and you are pretty close to the average life expectancy -you won't get that hip replacement.  Even if it turns out that guess at life expectancy was way off and you end up living for another 15 years entirely in a wheelchair, dependent on others fighting bedsores, muscle atrophy, increased risk of pneumonia.  And even if it means you would have lived another 20 years but instead only got to live another 15.  Because if you ain't contributing to the system anymore, you are just a waste of space.  Turning it over to government means government no longer approaches or treats every citizen as EQUALS -because under a government run system -THEY AREN'T EQUAL EVER AGAIN.

Switching from a private sector health care system to a government run one is not only NOT painless, it becomes an unrecognizable system that is over utilized by the healthy because government quickly considers treating young, income earning healthy people a better bargain than treating old, retired sick people.  The young and healthy who actually don't NEED it end up clogging the system, forcing the sick to wait even longer to be seen -during which they become even sicker and their illness more resistant to treatment.  Morbidity and mortality rates start rising in diseases that were the TARGETS of early treatment under a private sector system -things like high blood pressure, stroke, all sorts of cancers, diabetes etc?  You know, the stuff that used to kill people at an earlier age -but the private sector system made an effort to detect and treat vigorously at an earlier stage -and the mortality rates started dropping and have been dropping in this country since?  They aren't dropping in the UK anymore -they are RISING again.  For high blood pressure, stroke, breast and prostate cancers, complications of diabetes -all because their system has become one that exists primarily for those who need it the least -because it is CHEAPER that way.  As a result, they are going untreated for longer periods of time, they are further along in the disease process when finally treated and much less likely to respond -so they die earlier.  In addition -people are being denied curative treatment -treatment that would actually CURE them of the disease -if the actuarial tables show their age plus co-existing conditions just aren't worth the value government has placed on their life.  The average wait to see a doctor in this country is a matter of weeks -in government run ones, it is approaching TWO YEARS.  

Why do you think the left is constantly going on and ON and ON about COSTS?  It is because when it comes to QUALITY -there is no issue and there is NO ONE even bothering to pretend that a government run system will somehow improve quality -because it provably will not. So the left tries to keep the debate on cost -and pretending that having insurance equals quality health care -as if people are actually not receiving quality care now when that is provably bullshit.  Insurance doesn't affect QUALITY -and insurance isn't HEALTH CARE -it is insurance.  Insurance only tells you who is going to foot the bill for it -you or them.  If they won't pay for it and you can't afford it -you won't get it unless a doctor does it pro bono.  But the notion that under government run system you WOULD get it -is BULLSHIT.  The left is LYING when it says under government run everyone gets everything and they all get it for FREE!  No you won't, and no you don't -and no it isn't.  

We are talking about less than 15% -with the left demanding the only possible solution is to DESTROY this system entirely in order to satisfy that other 15%.   You switch to government run -then you switch the ENTIRE purpose of the system from one that exists to restore the individual to as near normal as possible and to improve the quality of life when it can't.  To one concerned about cutting costs and it doesn't take long before people start realize these are not compatible goals for the very people who NEED the system THE MOST -and they will be the ones forced to sacrifice their health, their quality of life and even their life expectancy.  So those who don't NEED it but have been encouraged to over utilize it because they were indoctrinated to believe it is "free" -won't.   

Government run health care will no longer view or treat all citizens equally -but will place a monetary value on their LIFE and then force the individual to accept it.  In the private sector system, the only concern my doctor would have about my age and being treated is whether I am physically able to withstand it and that the downside to treatment is worth the increase to the quality of my life.  That's it.  NOT how much my life is worth, and not whether some government bean counter decides they would save a hell of a lot more money if I just hurried up and kicked the bucket.  The most valuable life to government becomes those who WORK because they pay for the system.   But the irony is that our health care system became responsible for 95% of all medical advancements by seeking cures and treatments in order to both extend and improve the quality of life  - in other words, by trying to improve the quality of life for the elderly.  But with a government run system -old people are nothing but a real burden because they are no longer contributing to society in the form of income taxes and increasingly viewed as just not worth the "investment".  While getting a young, otherwise healthy person back to work as soon as possible is a much better "investment". 

What did you think Obama meant when he said he wanted to change OUR health care system from one that treated the ill -to one that existed primary to keep healthy people healthy?  IT IS THE REQUIRED first step in altering the primary purpose of a health care system from one that exists for the benefit of the ill to one that exists for the benefit of the healthy who are a hell of a lot CHEAPER TO TREAT.  Except for one problem -seeing a doctor when you are healthy -doesn't keep you healthy.  Which is why under government run systems the population is NOT healthier and sure as hell does not live longer and with a higher quality of life than exists in a private sector system.

Decide which you value most.  A system that exists for the primary purpose of restoring someone to as near normal as possible, curing them of their illness and when that isn't possible, providing the care and treatment that will improve the quality of their life.  Or one that exists for the purpose of cutting costs.  

There is a reason it is OUR system that is responsible for 95% of all medical advancements in the world.  And not a socialist, government run one.  DUH.  In spite of the left trying to pretend some socialized system does it better than we do -they aren't the one making 95% of all medical advancements in the world.


----------



## California Girl (Mar 21, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Explain how having a for profit middleman saves money on healthcare spending?
> ...



They aren't changing the socialist nature of the system (which costs 2 times less then Americans despite having higher health outcomes)[/QUOTE]

Why did you reword my post? That is against the rules of this board.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Frazzled gear,

Sorry but while you certainly seem to have a lot to say, your entire argument is based on the false premise that it's private funds paying for those American medical advances. That is simply not the case.



> NIH is the largest single funder of basic medical research in the United States; the research it supports provides the foundation of knowledge that drives innovation and improves health.
> 
> http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/nih-funds-help-lead-to-medical-advances-sl3up1t-138235984.html





> NIH is the largest source of funding for medical research in the world, creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs by funding thousands of scientists in universities and research institutions in every state across America and around the globe.
> 
> http://nih.gov/about/





> They determined that, although the research and development of a subset of pharmaceutical drugs that qualify for the FDA's "priority review" process receives direct government money, the research and development of most drugs is mostly funded by the private sector. The basic biomedical research behind the development of these drugs, however, is largely supported by public funding, especially through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
> 
> http://thedebtweowe.com/taxpayers-indirectly-help-develop-most-new-drugs



What this means is: 

Taxpayer money finds the breakthroughs, then the private sector changes around a molecule or two, adds a new name and patents it. 

So if it's taxpayers dollars that is funding the research, therefore, it's technically "socialism" that is driving those medical advances

ETA: 

When Obama said he wanted to change our health system to keep people healthy, he meant that it's cheaper and more efficient to treat people with preventative medicine rather than corrective medicine. 

Keeping someone from getting sick is always cheaper than treating them once they're sick. Therefore, we need a system that helps keep people healthy.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Facts that show blind patriotism is based on false premises is not anti American. In fact, showing that we are falling behind and demanding that we fulfill the potential that this great country has is true patriotism.

Your entire post is filled with inaccurate nonsense.



> Americans are the most likely to go without health care because of the cost and to have trouble paying medical bills even when insured, a survey of 11 wealthy countries found on Thursday.
> 
> US at bottom of health care survey of 11 rich countries - Economic Times
> 
> ...



It's like you added 2 and 2 and got starfish.

You can't really believe they couldn't find data...in the US...

And it's the rich people that make us great LOL

Wow, they really saw you coming didn't they?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



You are a silly, juvenile fellow...and probably will not realize how you have been manipulated...

But here is some indirect evidence that you should consider.* If I am not correct to a far greater degree than you are about healthcare in the United States,* and your master on the Left are the correct ones....

....how do you account for the fact that everything that Obama told you would be true about ObamaCare has and is proving to be lies?


...doesn't cover everyone

...premiums up, not down- doesn't bend the cost curve downward"

...won't be able to keep your own doctor

...cuts funding to Medicare

...CBO now admits it will cost over twice as much. That is why I have pledged that I will not sign health insurance reform that adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade. 

..."Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase." Check this out:  JCT: Healthcare law to sock middle class with a $3.9 billion tax increase in 2019 - The Hill's On The Money

So...*are you going to look at all the lies of the Left*, but continue to put your faith in what they tell you?
Does that make sense?


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Ignore away. It's true I'm being a bit of an ass. But it's for much more than just the "hell of it". I'm making a genuine point. I'm trying to get people in this thread to think critically about the purpose of government. I'm suggesting, via sarcasm and assitude, that the purpose of government is not (or rather,, should not be) to solve all our problems. From my perspective, those who wish to socialize health care don't get that. They don't really have an appreciation of limited government, or an understanding of why it's necessary for freedom. Do you?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


I know the facts and you are a liar.

1) I'm not only implying it, it's a fact.

2) People here illegally and not citizens of this country are being used by useful idiots like you to inflate the number of "uninsured"....Why not just extend Obolshevikcare to all of Mexico while we're at it?

3) I'm implying nothing...There are millions of people who can afford to pay for their medical care out of pocket and do so....That's not gaming the system in any way.

The "X million of uninsured" number has been jimmied and inflated for no less than 20 years now.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Number ONE?

That's not what the CIA says.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html


We're *50th* in LONGEVITY!

Got anything other lies/ignorance you want me to crush while I'm here ?


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 21, 2012)

Oddball said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If it's a fact, then you should be able to prove it.

But you don't.  For ANY of it.
Ever.


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



Because going from government to private is nearly impossible. Where do most medical innovations occur and what is the driving force? The answer is money. Where do most doctors from foreign countries come to train? Answer the United State. How long do diseases exist in other countries with no one doing anything until someone in the US gets ill with the disease? See AIDS. The truth is socialistic medicine is not profitable to health care companies and with out the United States profitability health care would suffer greatly. The rest of the world needs us to stay private even if they dont realize it. Heck even medical advances made in other countries are done to make a profit in the US.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 21, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> ... they won't deny you coverage or not treat you just because you have a pre existing condition.



If only homeowner's insurance worked that way too.  No one would have to take out a policy or pay a premium until the house was actually on fire.  That would be great!  Perfectly reasonable...and financially sustainable for the insurance industry I'm sure.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 21, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


You mean....as-opposed-to being a *totally-clueless Teabagger???*




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]




> *Wendell Potter*


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 21, 2012)

regent said:


> In a democracy often the laws have to be compromises, and the result is programs that reflect those compromises. Usually, once the law is in place it begins to be altered, added to, and gradually improved. How many times has Social Security been changed since 1935? If this health care law hangs in there, over the years it will be gradually improved and may become a program that equals other nation's health care. To write a good law the first time is almost unAmerican, and reflects badly on the party out of power.



Other nations health care? Most other nations send there doctors to train here. Most medical advancements are done because of the need in the United States. People that are really sick come to the United States to be treated. Are you truly as dumb as you sound?


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 21, 2012)

miami_thomas said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



If any of this were true, you could prove it.  I'll wait while you don't.

Nope.  Not a shred of evidence.
Meanwhile, MY ORIGINAL statement still stands true.

WHY ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES CHANGING TO OUR SYSTEM ?


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



That is because we live unhealthier lives then anywhere else. We have fatter people because we are richer than anywhere else. We drive everywhere where other countries walk everywhere because we all have cars. Know it is not an apples to apples comparison.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...


Stupidity?


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Obviously you have never been to Cuba. Don't believe what they tell you. Cuba is not where you would want to be if you were sick. See the link and you will see what Mr. Moore did not show you.

Hospital Clnico Quirrgico


----------



## miami_thomas (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Which part you want me to prove?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Post #81 applies to you as well.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



"....then you should be able to prove it."

Actually, that is not the case. 
Attention to the posts such as yours will yield the following conclusion to those of us who apply a scholarly approach:

1. Not facts, nor data, nor experience, nor rational debate will convince individuals such as you....

2. Inveterate Liberals have long ago achieved, even perfected, the willing suspension of disbelief, and the refusal to use experience and judgment....

3. It is my hope that those on my side of the argument will operate on the basis of "triage," consigning you the the category of those who cannot be saved....and will concentrate on those whose minds have not been warped, and wills sapped.

a. Present the facts, make the righteous argument. Hope for the best.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> miami_thomas said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...


First of all, Canada is backpedaling on their mandate that there be no for-hire medicine, so there's ONE country with socialized medicine moving back toward a more free system....Therefore your claim that no countries are making such a move is false on its face.

I' could post numerous links, viz. the outright lie of the inflated numbers of uninsured, all with legitimate citations, and I'll wager that you'll reject them all...Here are a few from just a cursory Google search...

The American Spectator : The Myth of the 46 Million

The myth of the uninsured - Raleigh Libertarian | Examiner.com

US Medicare and the Myth of "the 46 Million Uninsured" - Bill's Commentary - William Gairdner, freethinker


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 21, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > miami_thomas said:
> ...


Can you give a link to "Canada is backpedaling on their mandate that there be no for-hire medicine"?


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> WHY ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES CHANGING TO OUR SYSTEM ?



Some have yet to run out of other people's money.  Soon though, soon.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 21, 2012)

Gee an article from the American Spectator.

What an unbiased unimpeachable source you have presented.

And as for Political Chic,

All I asked was for him to PROVE what he asserted.
He didn't prove ANYTHING.

I listen to rational facts based on good scientific methodology.
What I don't listen to is "this is true" for no other reason than I assert it to be so.

When I post on here that middle class incomes have been stagnant since the 80's I post a chart showing so and WHO conducted the research.  When I post what the top tax rates were for the rich in 1950's, I post a link proving it and WHO provided the data.
When I post longevity charts to compare longevity in the US to other countries, , I use the CIA as a source.

What do you guys do?  
Assert things to be true and don't provide a SHRED of evidence.

Prove to me the superiority of our system with EMPIRICAL DATA or you've LOST this argument. You can present either that ours is more cost-efficient or that our outcomes are better.
It's as simple as that.

What did CONZ come up with?  A hack piece from the partisan American Spectator that argues that  only 21 million americans are uninsured.

Golly....less than 10% of our population can't afford healthcare!  WOWEE!  We're doing GREAT!

Here's a clue for you morons.  How much do those 21 million COST the rest of us, because they aren't insured?  Is it MORE or LESS than what we save?  You don't know.  You didn't even think to ask the question.   That alone shows how grossly underqualified CONZ are to discuss the issue.


----------



## Decepticon (Mar 21, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > WHY ARE NO SOCIALIST COUNTRIES CHANGING TO OUR SYSTEM ?
> ...



you DO know that Germany has had socialized medicine since the END of WW2, right?

Are THEY running out of other people's money?

Way to prove you're an ignoramus.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Well, since Germany is the only country that has ever practiced socialized medicine, I guess you're right...


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/international/americas/28canada.html?pagewanted=all
Timely Medical Services
Find Private Clinics in Canada for Walk in Clinics in Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver
MMS: Error
Canada Sees Boom In Private Health Care Business | Fox News
Private Insurance In Canada | In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option - Los Angeles Times
The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007
CIMCA | ACMIC
http://www.windsorstar.com/Private+...with+doctors+Windsor+Essex/4403075/story.html
Canadian Doctors for Medicare | Private clinics continue explosive growth
Private & Executive Healthcare Clinic | Medcan Clinic Toronto
Private health clinics remain unregulated in most of Canada
The rise of private care in Canada | Macleans.ca - Canada - Features


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Gee an article from the American Spectator.
> 
> What an unbiased unimpeachable source you have presented.
> 
> ...



Your function is to serve as a foil, allowing the correct information to be disseminated.

Good work.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Yeah! that's what I'd like to know. I thought Sweden was/had abandoned their government healthcare.  Was it them or somebody else? -- If socialized/government healthcare is so great, why do Canadians come here when they REALLY want something done?


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



These are the countries with Universal Healthcare, socialized medicine whatever you want to call it.    List of Countries with Universal Healthcare « True Cost &#8211; Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit  --- Notice US at the bottom.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



*Did a little research on your German healthcare:*

Those doctor budgets get divided into quarterly amounts &#8212; a limited pot of money for each region. Once doctors collectively use up that money, that's it &#8212; there's no more until the next quarter.

It's a powerful incentive for doctors to exercise restraint &#8212; not to provide more care than is necessary. But often, the pot of money is exhausted before the end of the quarter. "I don't get paid at the moment," he said recently, near the end of a quarter. "I haven't been paid for what I'm doing for the last two or three weeks."

He has to wait until the beginning of the next quarter before the sickness funds will start paying the bills he submits. *Some German doctors simply close their doors and take a vacation at the end of every quarter.*
Leibl says he feels "abused, exploited in a way" by this system, "because the work we are doing actually is pretty demanding. And I have a lot of responsibilities. And I think that should reflect in what I get paid."

In some parts of Germany, doctors are going on strike over what they get paid.
Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs : NPR


*I think that could be called rationing healthcare, don't you, Deceptive?*


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

This is a VERY interesting account of Sweden's healthcare system.  I have pasted the conclusion here.  Sweden's Single-Payer Health System Provides a Warning to Other Nations


While Sweden is a first world country, its health care system - at least in regards to access - is closer to the third world.  Because the health care system is heavily-funded and operated by the government, the system is plagued with waiting lists for surgery.  Those waiting lists increase patients' anxiety, pain and risk of death.

Sweden's health care system offers two lessons for the policymakers of the United States.  The first is that a single-payer system is not the answer to the problems faced as Americans.  Sweden's system does not hold down costs and results in rationing of care.  The second lesson is that market-oriented reforms must permit the market to work.  Specifically, government should not protect health care providers that fail to provide patients with a quality service from going out of business.

When the United States chooses to reform its health care system, reform should lead to improvement.  Reforming along the lines of Sweden would only make our system worse.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Welcome to the board, Uppy.

One thing I really like is this kind of soft-ball question, so I can answer it correctly, and in a manner that will antagonize our friends on the Left....

1. There was no groundswell of desire for government socialized healthcare...where was it prior to Obama?

2. The Left has always wanted a reason to take over more of the free market.

3.They fabricated stories of the horrors of American healthcare....and the Janissaries believed and repeated same.

4. Rammed it through Congress.

5. Research has never been the strong point  of the Left Wing Umpa Lumpas .


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 21, 2012)

A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program



That was a great response, Junk!

Good article....

but doesn't speak to the point that better than 4 out of 5 folks were happy with their healthcare.

In fact, it opens the Left up to the usual criticism that they behave as though they know what's good for folks moreso than the folks themselves do.

And, today...
"Likely U.S. Voters shows that 56% at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law, including 46% who Strongly Favor it.  Thirty-nine percent (39%) oppose repeal, with 29% who are Strongly Opposed."
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports


On the left, there is belief in the collective, and central planning, as opposed to freedom and liberty.

Right?


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Germany's insurance is Insurance Mandate, like Obamacare is.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Thanks!!


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Hmmmm, scarey, then


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 21, 2012)

Never in the history of the world has any government, once it had power or authority over the people, voluntarily given up that power.  And what is greater power over the people than the ability to dictate what rights the people will have and controlling their food supply, their means of acquiring a living, and their healthcare?

The USA is the first (and only) government in the history of the world that gave the power to the people and assigned the central government the responsibility to protect unalienable rights so that the people could then peacefully govern themselves.  And for the first 175 years or so that this grand experiment was implemented, the USA was the most free, most compassionate, most giving, most productive, most innovative, and most dynamic nation the world had ever known.

Without deference to class or ideology, Americans were the most generous, prosperous, productive, and creative people that had ever lived.  We enjoyed the most freedom, the best schools, the best healthcare system, the most choices, and the most opportunity the world had ever known.

But socialism looks really good at first blush.  Promised cradle to grave security and free stuff looks really good to a lot of people.  And just a little bit at first--that turning over that little bit of power to the central government looks and feels pretty good too.  Noble even.  It feels right and what is so terrible?   But as this happens little by little, increment by increment we have seen more and more of our society become ever more dependent on and at the mercy of that central government even as we have watched our schools erode,  our healthcare system deteriorate, and our freedoms and opportunities diminish year by year.

And as many of us have finally awakened and realize what has been happening, we see the house of cards socialism has built in Europe and other places come crashing down.  No government will ever operate an economy, schools, health care, or value human liberties and opportunity as welll as the people can do for themselves.   I hope it isn't too late for America to reverse the course we have been on.  I fear that if this generation does not do it, there won't be any people left who remember how precious and wonderful freedom is.


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 21, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Never in the history of the world has any government, once it had power or authority over the people, voluntarily given up that power.  And what is greater power over the people than the ability to dictate what rights the people will have and controlling their food supply, their means of acquiring a living, and their healthcare?
> 
> The USA is the first (and only) government in the history of the world that gave the power to the people and assigned the central government the responsibility to protect unalienable rights so that the people could then peacefully govern themselves.  And for the first 175 years or so that this grand experiment was implemented, the USA was the most free, most compassionate, most giving, most productive, most innovative, and most dynamic nation the world had ever known.
> 
> ...


You're right, Foxfyre! We need to shake off the bearish damper of socialism, and wildly so if we have to:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SNP-C16XqA"]HD Web Extra: Super Slo Mo of Bear shaking water off its fur - Nature's Great Events - BBC One - YouTube[/ame]

Rep coming your way for a great essay. Just wow.​


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Never in the history of the world has any government, once it had power or authority over the people, voluntarily given up that power.  And what is greater power over the people than the ability to dictate what rights the people will have and controlling their food supply, their means of acquiring a living, and their healthcare?
> ...


youre too dumb to even know what socialism means..


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Those are all good Meister, although this one you linked is my personal fave: Private (Canadian) Clinics Continue Explosive Growth


----------



## freedombecki (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Yes, dear, and you're too academic to be clinical enough to know that socialism as extreme as Obama's has historically led to societal necessity to wipe out people in terms of millions, thank you very much.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


you cant even define socialism with using cut and paste from a dictionary. so save the lecture for another one of your brain washed wing nut friends.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



This is all you have when you have been reduced down to rubbish, Dr. Syphon?


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



What happened to Deceptive?  I would like him to respond regarding this NPR article and his vision of the German's best damn healthcare in the world.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> youre too dumb to even know what socialism means..



An ad hominem attack from a resident lefty?  I for one am shocked...shocked I tell you!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > youre too dumb to even know what socialism means..
> ...


define it...... you cant because you dont even know what it is without a dictionary


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> ...you dont even know what it is without a dictionary



Followed up with another another ad hominem.  Again, just shocking.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Ok, smarty pants, since you are so smart --- YOU define it.  What do YOU think it is?


----------



## pinqy (Mar 21, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???



Because once people have a government provided service they regard as "free," it's almost impossible to eliminate that service.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 21, 2012)

pinqy said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Also power becomes a very heady, infectious, and persistent addiction very quickly.  Having the power over the people's healthcare and the ability to grant or withhold so necessary a service is a very strong incentive not to privatize much of anything.   As long as the people can be made to believe that it is necessary that the government provide something, the government will do its damndest to ensure its own security by keeping the people believing that.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



A person should go to PC's links and read the entire link, it seems that PC cherry-picked the articles, except for the Defend Your Healthcare link, that is a hugely anti-Obamacare and keep the status quo site,,,no bias there!


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 21, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> A Brief History: Universal Health Care Efforts in the US | Physicians for a National Health Program



Not that it is all that important, but it should be noted that the "Physicians for a National Health Program" are really a leftist lay organization that can boast almost no Physicians of any sort in its leadership though it does list a lot of physicians on its board.   (I'm not saying there are NO physicians associated with it but it appears that all or most of those who are already get paid by the government or a government entity.)

At least they are honest in that they bill themselves as a single issue organization.  They want the private healthcare system  dismantled and a government controlled single payer healthcare system throughout the country installed.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 21, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



"...that is a hugely anti-Obamacare..."

Wow!
Wonderful endorsement! 

It will, I'm certain, be a great resource, therefore, for anyone with any sense!


But you, being just south of sane, would be left as confused as a cow on AstroTurf.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's easy.

Premiums haven't gone down because the 80-85% rule will only drive prices down once the mandate kicks in and even then it will be a full year before they do. 

Almost everything else you mentioned were concessions made to the NeoCons.

And sorry, but you folks can't decry the CBO as liars and pukes in one thread and then call them a credible source in another. One or the other, but not both.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



The CBO only gives the numbers on the information given.  Seems other things are sneaking in and also, CLASS was going to be a major source of funding, and it's been eliminated.  But...I really don't think that is of any concern to socialists.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Was there a number given for a projection addressing 'fraud and waste' to the CBO?
We all know it's going to happen, and some major waste and fraud going on with Medicare right now.  just a thought.....


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Actually, funding is a MAJOR concern for Socialists, and you'd know that if you had been paying attention.  After all, why tax the rich unless you need funding?

Obviously, the NeoCons think missles grow free in the wild on trees picked by non union minimum wage workers, hence their inability to actually fund the government.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Was there a number given for a projection addressing 'fraud and waste' to the CBO?
> We all know it's going to happen, and some major waste and fraud going on with Medicare right now.  just a thought.....



Absolutely true.

But as we can't regulate anything or enforce the regulations we have due to lack of funding, I guess fraud and waste will just have to continue.

So much for fiscal responsibility.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Socialists think that if it's not a union job, it's a minimum wage job.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Was there a number given for a projection addressing 'fraud and waste' to the CBO?
> ...



Yes, and so much for the CBO's numbers.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Like I said, either the CBO is a credible source or it's not. I'm new here so I'll accept the judgement of the old timers here. If its not credible, I won't use them as a source.

But if it is credible, then their numbers are going to prove both sides.


----------



## NoNukes (Mar 21, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



Do you choose a country strictly for it's healthcare?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


what socialist country has unions?


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



without looking?  Spain for one.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Hehe funny but untrue.

As someone who borders fairly close to socialist in my views, I'm grateful for the well paying non union job I have. 

But it wouldn't pay as well as it does had Unions not existed.

And believe it or not, you like unions too. You're a part of the greatest one in all of history. The United States.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Let's just say I like *A* union, with what your posts reflects.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Spain is a parliamentary monarchy not a socialist country. nice fail...

try again

Spain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The political form of government of Spain is a parliamentary monarchy,[1] that is, a social representative, democratic, constitutional monarchy in which the Monarch is the head of state and the Prime Minister &#8212; whose official title is "president of the Government" &#8212; is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by "The Government", which is integrated by the prime minister, the deputy prime ministers, and other ministers, which collectively form the Council of Ministers. Legislative power is vested in the Cortes Generales (General Courts), a bicameral parliament constituted by the Congress of Deputies and the Senate. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, administering justice on behalf of the King by several judges and magistrates. The Supreme Court of Spain is the highest court in the nation, with jurisdiction in all Spanish territories, superior to all in all affairs, except in constitutional matters, which are competence of the Constitutional Court.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...




They were until the last election.....So...no not exactly a fail.  The party failed because it just wasn't working over there.  Go figure.....


The Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (Spanish: Partido Socialista Obrero Español [par&#712;tiðo so&#952;ja&#712;lista o&#712;&#946;rero espa&#712;&#626;ol]  listen (help·info); PSOE [pe&#712;soe]  listen (help·info) ) is a social-democratic[1] political party in Spain. Its political position is Centre-left. *The PSOE is the former ruling party of Spain, until beaten in the elections of November 2011* and the second oldest, exceeded only by the Partido Carlista, founded in 1833.[citation needed]
Spanish Socialist Workers' Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


just because a socialist party got elected to power, doesnt make the country a socialist nation. so yes its still a fail.

your own post calls them center-left. Clinton was a center left president, and was nowhere near a socialist.


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



 Look at the tax structure of Spain and get back to me, okay?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


so you define a country's governmental system based on its tax code????? sorry that post doesnt pass the bullshit test..


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


So far, none of your posts, on any topic, have passed the bullshit test....


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


this guy............. bwaahahahahaha 

stupid post is.... well stupid....

come back and join the adults when you can actually add something to the conversation 

heres a brilliant example of your typical post


Oddball said:


> If anything here is being reinforced, it's how socialist moonbat nut sacks like you are so quick to pat yourselves on the back for being the smartest peter puffers in the room.


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Don't mind Odd...he's one of the board's trolls....


----------



## Meister (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



it sure does pass the redistribution of wealth litmus test...what a better way than to tax the hell out of the citizens and redistribute the funds.
While your at it, check out the state owned businesses in Spain.  You can label Spain however you want...how did obama say it?  You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
So please try not to be so condescending


----------



## Syphon (Mar 21, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


redistribution of wealth goes both ways. the bush tax cuts took from the middle class and gave to the wealthy. 

Why tax cuts for the rich make no sense - CNN

The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy | Economic Policy Institute

but defining a country's system of government by their tax code to say they are socialist is a failed argument.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 21, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I would say 

Defining a country's system of government ONLY by their tax code etc etc

It's definitely a factor


----------



## Oddball (Mar 21, 2012)

Dr Grump said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Yeah...It's not like I've laid down one of the two substantive bitch slappings on this thread (Meister being the other), or anything like that.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Frazzled gear,
> 
> Sorry but while you certainly seem to have a lot to say, your entire argument is based on the false premise that it's private funds paying for those American medical advances. That is simply not the case.
> 
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You keep stating that but yet you can't prove it beyond your worthless opinion.  The chronology of the post makes YOU out to be a LIAR, Oddball.  Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



either you slept through that class in High School regarding argumentation and debate, or you are totally full of it!


Oddball made several statements as if they are fact.  I asked him to provide proof BEYOND HIS OPINION that supports his statements.  To date, neither him (or YOU) can meet that simple burden of proof.

That means Oddball and you lose the argument.....just ask any high school or college debate team instructor.

Now grow the fuck up and deal with reality, will ya please?


----------



## Dr Grump (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



You might see throwing out one liners as bitch slaps. I see them as adding nothing to the debate....


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Do you know WHY we were pissed off about the Tea Tax England was imposing on us?

The tax was put in place to increase the profits of the East India Tea Company. Look up the Tea Act of 1773. 

But to cut to the chase, our country was founded on the principle of resisting corporate controls of the people and wealth. We weren't just overthrowing a King, we were overthrowing a corporation.

And here we are again...paying taxes to support corporate power over the people.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Center-left means different things in different countries. 

Take England for example. Ask an English Conservative if they want to do away with their Government Run Health Care system, and the answer is a decisive," No!"

Our political terms are not universal.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Yep... Not much has changed. You're referring to PPACA I assume?


----------



## regent (Mar 22, 2012)

Can anyone name a socialist country?


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 22, 2012)

regent said:


> Can anyone name a socialist country?



Not playing that game, because it's a red herring.  I don't care about how we categorize our current socio-political situation or that of any other country.  I care about the direction we're heading.  Is it toward more freedom or bigger government?  The trend in America is clear.  Perhaps Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for president, said it best:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. 

He went on to say: I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Can anyone name a socialist country?
> ...


good to see the right keeps reinforcing the fact that they cant answer simple questions when asked.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...


They are facts and I later linked to sources backing them, fool.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Heere are the links again, lazy ass.



Meister said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



They can't answer the question because Socialism is a catch all word for anything that they don't like. Since they are steeped in a certain set of beliefs they would never bother to find out what something means. There may actually be one or two that actually know and they probably don't use the word wrongly.


----------



## eflatminor (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



One, I'm not "right".  Two, why should anyone respond to a red herring?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


so dont answer questions when asked, it just reinforces the fact that you avoid them and cant have an adult conversation without coming up with excuses.


----------



## regent (Mar 22, 2012)

Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth? 
Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy. 
The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it.  What is socialism?


----------



## Meister (Mar 22, 2012)

I don't think this is your thread, Syphon...why don't you start a thread on your question.  Maybe then people will take you and your views more serious, and have a good debate on your topic.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

regent said:


> Can anyone name a socialist country?



Sweden comes to mind:

Sweden is no socialist paradise | Adam Smith Institute

Since governments cannot force their citizens to adopt a Lutheran work ethic or create a largely homogenous population without engaging in large scale social engineering (inappropriate on one side of the scale, genocide on the other), what lessons can the struggling state learn from the Swedish model? Simply: that growth and wealth creation is best left to individual entrepreneurs, and the best action the government can take is to create a pro-business environment in which these individuals have the highest chance of success.


And this is interesting: 

Why Socialism Collapsed in Eastern Europe

Instead of growing, the capital stock of socialist countries has been declining. They've been consuming it. Most of the textile mills in eastern Czechoslovakia were built before the First World War. They still operate with the original machinery. In East Germany, many of the buildings seem not to have been painted since 1945. In some cases, no one even painted over the old and faded Nazi slogans on the walls. In the Soviet Union, there are chemical factories built 110 years ago that are still producing the same chemicals in the same way. It is a general principle that under socialism no factory is ever closed.

The capital stock inherited from previous generations has been largely worn out, and there are real declines in the standards of living of many East European countries. Those declines would have taken place sooner had it not been for the enormous amount of Western capital that was pumped in by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and other international lending institutions and used largely to finance current consumption.

*A second factor that led to the revolutions of 1989 was the difficulty of controlling information. I mean not just political news but also the kind of information about how people live in other countries that you get from watching Western movies. The VCR and the Walkman have had a tremendous impact on life in socialist countries. Radio Free Europe was certainly important, especially in countries such as Romania that didn't have much access to VCRs, but Radio Free Europe could always be discounted as propaganda. In other countries, principally Poland and Hungary but also the Soviet Union, there was a massive influx of electronic devices. Initially, the state tried to control or outlaw them because it knew how subversive they could be. But their suppression was simply impossible.*

The bolded paragraph sound familiar?  The libs want to shut down Fox News for the same reasons.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

regent said:


> Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
> Most major industrial nations, such as the United States, have a mixed economy, socialism and capitalism, and depending on the definition of socialism may have always had a mixed economy.
> The value of the word is that Republicans have been using it as a scare word for some years now and although it's getting tired it still works. The only problem seems to be that few can define it.  What is socialism?



Generally, state control of our economic affairs. Is this confusing to you in some way?


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...







Europe's Sad Socialism Experiment & What America Can Learn From It




Very often when discussing the issue of universal health care with liberals, they almost always resort to the argument that "we're the only nation in the free world that doesn't have universal health care. Other countries have figured out a way to pay for it, so why can't we?"

Well, now we know the answer to that question, thanks to a startling new article from the New York Times, entitled "Payback Time: Europeans Fear Crisis Threatens Liberal Benefits."

For years, liberals have turned green with envy at the European Union's 30-hour work week, its lengthy vacation packages, its wide-ranging early retirement benefits and its government-sponsored health care coverage. The European social model has been copied by countries outside the EU, and liberal American Democrats have put tremendous pressure on the federal government to adopt a similar framework for these government-backed spending sprees here at home. President Barack Obama has made great strides toward implementing the European Socialist form of government with passage of his recent health care reform plan, and his current push for amnesty is being described by liberal Democrats as an answer to America's illegal immigration problem.

It appears, however, that the European Union is finally waking up to the fact that nothing in life comes for free. The citizens of the European Union are becoming angry as they realize they will have to pay dearly if they want to continue to enjoy their existing lifestyle or make dramatic spending cuts if they want to maintain the little wealth they have left. Greece was the first to wake up to a debt crisis, but every country in the EU is facing a similar fate. Most recently, Spain has succumbed to a crisis of its own.



So what does all this mean for the U.S.? Why should we care what happens across the Atlantic?

Although the mainstream media has largely ignored the social issues angle raised in the Times' report, there are a number of reasons the European Union's woes should trouble the United States. First and foremost, after suffering through one of the worst recessions in U.S. history, America is finally beginning to emerge. Unless there is a dramatic shift in the way the European Union operates its collective economies, the crisis in Europe will set off another recession. If America fails to insulate itself from the impending implosion, it likely will be sucked into the vortex right along with the rest of the world. Secondly, President Barack Obama and Congress must take a hard look at the policies it's been pursuing since last year and take corrective measures to reduce America's long-term debt and eliminate as much deficit spending as possible. 

There is an age-old problem that exists in politics. People want the government to provide them with everything, but they don't want to pay for anything. When the government does begin to provide its citizens with everything, it creates an unsustainable entitlement. Then, when future generations are forced to deal with the poor decisions of its predecessors, those who feel entitled to these "free" services are revolting because they are being taken away. That, folks, is a recipe for revolution.

How could anyone forget the woman who, after attending an Obama rally in 2008, believed that if she helped lift Obama to victory, she'd no longer have to "worry about putting gas in my car, I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage ..."

Imagine how disappointed that woman must be today after discovering that she did indeed have to pay for her own gas and she still has to pay her mortgage even though the candidate she supported became president.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Why do some people accept a socialist's words as the truth?
> ...



Yup.  You may technically own your business, but if the government has the power to tell you where and how you have to operate it, what products you must provide and/or what products you are not allowed to provide, how the products will be produced, what wages and benefits you must pay/provide for your employees, what price you can charge for your finished product or service, and who you have to sell it to, and how much profit you will be allowed to keep, THAT is socialism.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



And for liberals who may currently own their own business, is THIS what they really want?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


setting minimum standards and regulations is socialism?


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



MINIMUM?  You call that MINIMUM?  Let's see, a restaurant owner who is either leasing or owns the building, works himself in it, buys all the food, pays the utiliies, pays everything to operate the business is told by the government it can't allow smoking in it, a LEGAL activity.  That is NUTS.  But of course they can have drinking, oh hell yes, they can get drunker than skunks.  Of course Democrats own many of the distilleries, so why not?   Other than not serving spoiled food, engaging in illegals acts: murder, rape, prostitution, drug dealing,  the restaurant owner should be left alone to run his business as he pleases.  If you don't like the smell of smoke, then eat somewhere else.  That's just ONE of many assinine regulations.  

If the above quote you responded to is how YOU think it should be, honey you're living in the wrong country.   At least for now that is.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


We're not talking about setting minimum standards here, comrade...We're talking about setting virtually_* all*_ the standards, then authoritarian worms like you trying to claim that the business climate isn't socialistic or fascistic...Take your pick of totalitarian mindsets.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


smoking standards are set by the state, not the fed so your anger is misdirected. and smoking is a public health risk, just as asbestos is a public health risk. are you advocating that business go back to being allowed to use asbestos in buildings? 

restaurants also must follow FDA and OSHA guidelines and mandates. they tont tell restaurants what products they must offer or what they can charge, but they must follow food handling safety and worker safety laws and regulations as a minimum. this doesnt prevent them from putting in higher standards. 

construction sites are mandated to have hardhats by OSHA, but they dont tell you specifically what hard harts to use, they give you the standard that they must meet and the worker is free to choose which one he / she wears based on that standard.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


where in any law does it state that the standards sets must be adhered to exactly as written? youve obviously never heard about meeting and exceeding standards


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


Pure bullshit.

This is the grade school semantics game that socialists play, when they try to muddy the waters and claim that there _*really isn't*_ any socialism anywhere.

You two schmucks will go a lot farther when you quit pretending that nobody has ever heard your vapid and intellectually bankrupt arguments before.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yep.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

Does anybody else get the impression that the point being made went right over Syphon's head?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Does anybody else get the impression that the point being made went right over Syphon's head?



Nah... I think it bounced off to the side.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?



I do. Or that's at least the case with many on the right. Maybe most. Same with the left. Ignorance reigns supreme.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?
> ...


can you define socialism with using a dictionary then?


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.
Now lets examine the story, better yet let's examine the far right lean of the article. Let's look deeper into how unbiased this article is not.
The author is Justin Quinn. Who is he what is his political affiliation. First he writes for About.com in the section on US Conservative politics. That tells me something about his opinion. 



> Justin Quinn:
> An 11-year veteran of journalism, Justin spent more than four of them covering national, state and local politics in Central Pennsylvania -- perhaps the most conservative area in the country.


 You will note the word conservative. 



> From Justin Quinn:
> 
> The mission of this site is to provide accurate, thoughtful and informative content for people interested in learning more about the conservative movement and its political agenda. It is my hope that it will serve as a clearinghouse for conservative politics and issues, and also as a place for discussion and healthy debate. Readers looking to break into conservative politics at any level will find this site to be a great first-step toward familiarizing themselves with conservative ideologies and the contemporary challenges facing political conservatives in the US.



He states his mission is to spread the conservative movement. I guess that leaves us with a very biased source. 
There is a mention of an eleven year career. I am able to find nothing published by him in any national news source.
Your link is biased at best and hold little water. It would be akin to using a post from this site as a source. He did quote an article from the New York Times, but that alone doesn't make this any sort of real journalism. Thanks for the effort but you'll need to do better than that.

The source for the quotes:   http://usconservatives.about.com/bio/Justin-Quinn-33020.htm


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



smoking is a public health risk?  Then don't go the restaurant that allows smoking.  Drinking alcohol is a public health risk.  At least people who smoke a cigarette are safe to drive a car.  I don't have "anger" over this, just disgust.  There is a difference.  Asbestos has been outlawed.  Cigarettes have not.  THAT is the difference. Oh, but wait you all want to legalize marijuana and you smoke marijuana.  Is the smoke from marijuana not a publich health risk?   My mother smoked for the first 25 years of my life, I have NO lung ailments.  My husband smoked for the first 5 years of our marriage.  Neither one of us have any health ailments and we are in our 60s.  People get lung cancer who have never smoked.   I do agree with not smoking in an airplane as there is no ventilation.  But in a bar?  it's nuts.  Again, no anger, just disgust.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > does any get the impression that no one on the right even knows what socialism is?
> ...



Well the Wikipedia definition is pretty comprehensive when it comes to a Definition for Dummies re socialism:



> Socialism is an economic and political system where the use of property and capital (money) is used for the common good.[1] According to socialists, the wealth of a society should be shared, and everyone in it should have everything they need. Individual rights and needs cannot be more important than the needs of everyone. Although socialist ideas go back in history to Plato, the word socialism was first used in Britain in the 1820's.[1] Louis Blanc described socialism as being from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.[2]
> 
> Socialism is an economic or governmental system in which the public, or the state, owns or runs important industries. Its goal is to have the industries make money which can be used for the benefit of everyone. It wants to give workers some control over their work places. When economic planning is applied extensively, it is referred to as "communism", although communism as used by Karl Marx had a different meaning originally.
> 
> ...


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Sure! So can you. It's easy on the world wide web. Here ya go:

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



I didn't expect any liberal to believe this. But you DO believe Greece went belly up right, it was on all the news channels, even MSNBS.   Do a little research then on possibly relocating to Sweden or somewhere with your precious socialized medicine and see what you find.   The fact is you believe what you want to believe.  The German people refused to believe that Hitler was up to no good until it was too late.  The Cubans refused to believe anything bad about Castro -- until it was too late.   Stop and expand your brain a bit and ask yourself what would happen if all of us decided to hell with it and quit our jobs, which trust me as crossed my mind, sold our homes and decided to rely on the goverment.  With fewer and fewer tax payers, where is the government going to get the money?  From money trees? or just print it in the basement.   You liberals haven't got the sense God gave a goose!! You DO believe the sky is blue and grass is green, right?  Or do you need a "link" for that?


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

The money line in that Wikipedia definition I posted is this:

*Individual rights and needs cannot be more important than the needs of everyone*  That is socialism in a nutshell.

In other words the people have no rights that are not assigned/allowed by the government as opposed to the Founder's concept of unalienable rights that are given by God and that the government is charged to protect and defend.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



There is no pure form of socialism anywhere in the world. Just as there is no pure form of Capitalism anywhere in the world. There are only degrees of implementation.

And as an advocate of Universal Health Care for America, I will tell you this, pure socialism would never work, just as pure Capitalism can never work, because neither takes into account human nature, specifically human greed. Each expects everyone to just be on their best behavior. Not going to happen. Pure socialism starves human greed and pure capitalism over feeds it.

The answer is somewhere in between.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Here you go:    List of socialist countries - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Way to completely miss the point.

And maybe...just maybe you should read...at least the first paragraph of what you linked to, huh?



> This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions. No other criteria are used; thus, some or all of these countries may not fit any specific definition of socialism



America calls itself a Capitalist Democracy...are we?

Some say it's a socialist republic...still others would say its more of a socialist plutocracy...

What people call themselves and what they really are often are different things.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...



I would not give you a biased link from someone akin to a political poster as a valid link. The man says is mission is to promote conservative issues. Why would I believe it or even pay attention? I did read it and checked it out.


----------



## Meister (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Very true, Vidi...I agree with your assessment of the terms.
Having said that, I don't think the country can afford the UHS.
Our country in my opinion cannot afford the strain it would cause 
 the economy.  For one, I think our country is too large at 
300 million and growing.  I really don't see UHS as a success in 
other countries.  Waste, fraud, and yes, even rationing would come 
into play.  Rationing is seen in Germany right now.
Funding will be a big boondoggle for this to move forward, and on
who's back?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Yup your list shows Cuba, China, Vietnam and Laos......

and actually all 4 of those countries are communist. i dont see any western nations on that list. no european countries or even south american countries..

you totally showed us!


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Not many places where that exists, are there?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Germany doesny have Universal Health Care as most Americans see it. In fact they are under the Bismark system in which health care is provided through a combination of Employer and employee premiums, which if you get your health care through your employer, youre pretty much on right now.

Universal Health care in this country however would NOT be an easy switch. We cant just say Here it is and everything is hunky dory. The change WILL cause some people to lose their jobs as health insurance companies would no longer require their services to process claims.

But heres the thing:

The US has always been great at seeing how other countries have done things and modifying or improving those systems to suit our needs. Our interstate highway system for example came as a direct result of Eisenhower seeing the autobon in germany during the war and bringing that idea back to the US.

If we really wanted to fix the health care issues in this country, we could find a solution. Maybe Universal Health care isnt the solution to our problem, but before we can fix anything we first have to all admit that our system is not working.

check out The Healing of America  by TR Reid. Its an excellent book on the subject of the various systems throughout the world ( theres basically only four ) and how America is the only one that utilizes all four.


----------



## Meister (Mar 22, 2012)

Like Vidi stated...."there are degrees of implementation"...says enough for me to understand.  Maybe not to most apparently, seems like it's a black and white thing.
Either it's full blown socialism or its not at all socialism.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 22, 2012)

I listened to callers on a talk show. Unfortunately I didn't hear the whole show, but one woman said her son had been treated for pneumonia in the US and it was cured. He didn't feel well, however, and later when he was transferred to Canada and had to get on their Medicare, it was discovered he had kidney failure. They not only did a kidney transplant for free, but flew his mother to and from Canada and covered her costs so that she could give him her kidney.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 22, 2012)

dblack said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


"a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

wow, now that you know what it actually means you can educate yourself and learn that Obama is actually not a socialist...... yay for you


----------



## Meister (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



I do agree that if we really wanted it fixed, it could be done, Vidi.
I just don't see our politicians capable of doing it right now.
Both sides have an agenda where there isn't any middle ground.
The people of this great nation are the ones who suffer because of 
the stalemate regarding bipartisanship.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Funny how the socialists never seem to take into account the human greed of the people who seek to be the ones in charge of the leviathan state.

Nonetheless, we've tried this "in between" for no less than the last century, (i.e. the so-called "third way" touted by progressives, Keynesians and other closet totalitarians) and it's an unqualified disaster, which invariably requires more bureaucratic fixes to fix the fix that was supposed to fix all of America's problems.

Much as you may like to believe differently, failure of bureaucratic central planning is not evidence that even more bureaucratic central planning is called for.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I agree.

I don't mind the extremes we have now. It's the fact they can't find a middle ground compromise that bugs me the most.

But, and I know this will start a firestorm, I also think this country has been incrementally moving further and further right since Reagan. I miss Eisenhower and Nixon, true conservatives...( I'm not that old lol )


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



As long as elected politicians, political appointees, and bureaucrats are able to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes via partisanship, bipartisanship is not going to happen.  Nor in the history of the entire world has any government voluntarily relinquished power once it obtained it.

The Founders intended for the central government to recognize--that is recognize and not assign--the rights of the people and then leave the people alone to govern themselves.

We the people do not need the federal government to fix anything.

We the people need to rise up and demand that the federal government get out of healthcare and every other program that the federal government was never intended to manage and return that responsibility back to the people in the states, in their local communities, on the farms, or whatever.

When that happens, we will have bipartisanship again, and things can get fixed.

Until then, I frankly think we are screwed.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> But, and I know this will start a firestorm, I also think this country has been incrementally moving further and further right since Reagan. I miss Eisenhower and Nixon, true conservatives...( I'm not that old lol )


A cacophony of incredulous laughter ain't a firestorm, tovarich.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Monetary greed and power greed are huge forces trained into the human nature. Yet if people are never expected to be better we have just given up. Universal health care can and does work. Like any human invention there are flaws even in the best of them. 
US medical costs are way beyond everyone who does have universal health care. 
You have runaway prices for equipment and medicines. You have the high cost of doctors and no one denies them a decent living. The cost to run a hospital. It is expensive.
You add to that the profit for insurance executives and the cost gets higher. You add the cost of filing to twenty different insurance companies. You add in calls on every claim and it gets insane.
You look at Medicare and VA coverage. You are looking at two of the highest risk groups and the US covers them with no lower and healthier groups to ease the grading on costs. There is no buffer group.
The cost of medical care is all about profit. Universal health care would still have premiums and is not free as it isn't today. People would not stop paying for coverage. The government would get the premium money. Insurance companies survive on premium money. The government would do the same. Why would anyone think the government will not charge the premium. All the other nations have a premium.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



I have to disagree.

I believe the Government must maintain some control in order to protect the rights of the people.

Health Care is a good example.

The first document of our country lists only three rights: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

And I believe that order of rights is important. Without Liberty, there can be no pursuit. Without Life, there can be no Liberty. 

Without access to proper health care, all three of those rights are diminished if not completely removed.

Therefore, if it is the governments role to not only recognize but protect the rights of the people, then the government must find a way to provide health care for all citizens.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Man, what convoluted "logic" (for lack of a better term).

There's no lack of access to health care....None whatsoever.

And while we're talking about life and liberty, what of the lives and liberties of the people who enter the medical profession, to earn what the market will bear paying them?


----------



## Meister (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



When has the government been prudent with our money?  
Please list all the success stories that the government has
accomplished on budget or under budget.
I'll be waiting for your answer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



No, because the government can never accomplish a competent sustainable healthcare system because it has to take property away from people in order to do that.   There isn't enough money on the planet to sustain a universal healthcare system paid for only by taxes.   The Preamble is very specific that the purpose of the federal government and the Constitution to which it is bound is  to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.

Welfare in this sense was not freebies or services that the government gives to people--even a cursory reading of the Founders makes that quite clear--but rather encourage the ability of the people to form the society they wanted--and the Blessings of Liberty of course referred to the Declaration's recognition of unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

American exceptionalism is built on the concept that the government cannot give rights but can only recognize, acknowledge, and defend them.  That would assume the right of the people to create a healthcare sysem, but no 'right' for the government to provide it any more than there is a right for the government to provide food, clothing, shelter, etc., all necessities of life.  Why?  Because the  federal government was not intended own property and therefore was not intended to confiscate anybody's property for its own benefit or the benefit of anybody else.  It all belongs to the people.  The intent was for the free market to accomplish and provide whatever the people wanted to have.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Unicwersal health care does not work.  Every system is beset by the same issues: runaway costs leading to high structural deficits.  Why do you think the US will be different?  States that have tried some version of Obamacare have all experienced exactly the same thing.
The gov't is incompetent to run a whorehouse.  They cannot run health care.  Private enterprise comes with incentives for efficiency and innovation.  That is why virtually every advance in medicine has come from the US.
If we want to provide care c.1980 to everyone we can do that.  I'd prefer people have access to state of the art care.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



First,

There are people in this country who die because the health insurance company they paid for years suddenly drops them when they get sick. They worked, paid their premiums and then were dropped. Then because they were gainfully employed and not lazy drains on the system, they made too much money to qualify for assistance from the state.

Or they end up so far in debt, that it takes a decade or more to dig themselves out of the whole or worse lose everything they've worked their entire lived for.

As far as those who enter the field to make money...you think doctors work for free in France or Germany? 

You think people don't get rich in Europe?


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Government has kept Social Security solvent and Medicare working. The nature of this money is for the healthcare of the nation. Think about the VA as well. They have decent care and lower costs. When you consider the added premium dollars to what is already received there would be plenty. The only people who would suffer are those that lost money from lost profits in the insurance industry.
It works and can work to lower everyone's costs.
The government has never been good with money nor has any other government. Yet the services provided to the people still function. Does your local government pick up your garbage? Do the streets, roads and highways fall completely apart? The military though wildly mismanaged still continues to operate.
Your food is tested. Drugs are tested. They have failing but in some areas they don't fall down so badly on the job.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



You're under some very ...wrong impressions.

First, nothing is free. Nothing. Everything has to be paid for.

In Germany, like here, universal health care is provided through a combination of taxes, employer and employee contributions.

In France, England and Canada, it's paid through taxes and price fixing.

In Japan, it's taxes and patient pocketbook ( patients pay 30%, government 90% )

In other words, the people still pay premiums but instead of going to a private insurance company that can deny you ( corporate death panel ) it goes to the government who can't deny you.

And in ALL of the countries I just mentioned Private Health Insurance companies still exist and make a profit.

Lastly, American Exceptionslism is propaganda. We pat ourselves on the back and say," Look at how awesome we are " All the while ignoring the fact, that we ONLY became a superpower after our completion had been bombed to rubble. And once they rebuilt, we lost our Exceptionslism and have been struggling ever since.

Only when we are truly honest about how we got here will we be able to set a course for the future.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Social security--bankrupt
Medicare--bankrupt.
VA care--horrible.
They are inept at everything they run.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Not according to the chronology of the posts with relation to our discussion, bunky.  You and your cohorts need to get your shit together.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



There's that statement about medical advanced coming from the US only.

First off, not true.

And second, the vast majority of medical advances in the US are government financed.

I covered this in another thread - with links. 


Additionally, Health Care and Medical Research are two completely different things. You're making an apples and oranges argument.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




Your response to OTHER posters is NOT a response to me, you blithering idiot!  But I'll cut you some slack in leiu of the humiliation you suffer on these boards.

As for your "proof"....  More myopic and biased reporting from right wing-nut think tanks and bloggers.  Here stupid, for your education:
_
The U.S. Census Bureau said in September that the number of people without coverage rose to 50.7 million in 2009 from 46.3 million in 2008. _


_The health insurance law signed by Obama in March 2010 will make medical insurance and care more affordable by providing small business tax credits, banning lifetime benefit caps and requiring a package of essential benefits, Collins said. Creation of statewide insurance exchanges may also allow insurers to better spread the risk across a larger and healthier population, she said. 

The law will add as many as 32 million Americans to ranks of the insured in 2014, according to an estimate last year by the Congressional Budget Office._

Americans Without Health Insurance Rise to 52 Million on Job Loss, Expense - Bloomberg

Bloomberg ain't no liberal, my Odd little friend...and I'll take the straight numbers from the CBO and the Census Bureau over the interpretations and one sided reporting of your sites any day of the week.

Like I said before, if anyone doubts just how screwed up our Healthcare system is prior to the Reform Act, just ask Wendell Potter and Dr. Peelo.  YOU WON'T, Oddball, and neither will your like minded compadres....so much more to pity. Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 22, 2012)

Here's a little tidbit:  It costs $125 out of pocket to pay to have excessive ear wax removed......it takes place in the doctor's office and takes less than 15 minutes from examination to removal to chit chat to see ya next year and pay at the door.  Now in my town, the doctor that does this does NOT take personal checks UNLESS you have insurance.  He does take cash and credit cards.

A pain in the ass for the unemployed and/or uninsured, or working folk on a tight budget, n'est-ce pas?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



It is true.
It depends on what you want to call "medical advances."  I dont think your statement is supportable as is.
Health care and medical research are intricately linked.  Except in socialist countries where there is little clinical reseatch.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Yes they are bankrupt...24 YEARS from now.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs...12/social-security-medicare-busts-move-closer

Seriously, try not to fall for the propaganda


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



http://m.jsonline.com/news/opinion/nih-funds-help-lead-to-medical-advances-sl3up1t-138235984.html

There's the link. 

Taxpayer money funds most advances in this country, not private companies.

So is that socialism?


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Here's a little tidbit:  It costs $125 out of pocket to pay to have excessive ear wax removed......it takes place in the doctor's office and takes less than 15 minutes from examination to removal to chit chat to see ya next year and pay at the door.  Now in my town, the doctor that does this does NOT take personal checks UNLESS you have insurance.  He does take cash and credit cards.
> 
> A pain in the ass for the unemployed and/or uninsured, or working folk on a tight budget, n'est-ce pas?



Hey, life is tough.  It is not the gov'ts job to subsidize the unemployed, uninsured or working folks who have blown their budget on cigs and beer.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


The linkl is not proof of anything, other than you cannot analyze evidence.  It is plea for continued funding.  Nothing more.
Again, your statement is unsupported.
And incorrect:


> ndustry was the largest contributor to biomedical research, accounting for 58 percent of all 2007 spending, the team at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York found.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/12/us-research-usa-idUSTRE60B5FL20100112


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


They are supported by continued taxpayer infusions.  If they were private enterprises they would be filing for Chapter 11.


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Pull your head out. Have a look around. Read some of the things I post. I've never said he was.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



You would have to leave the US to get state of the art care. You may get a few cures here but prevention and care comes from many other nations. Medical advancements don't only come from the US. They come from all around the world in an equivalent number. But state of the art care all you get in the US is state of the art costs.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Social Security still makes it's payments as does Medicare. The Va care is good I know a few people with VA coverage in four different states and they all say the care is adequate and meets their needs. Your statement may be your opinion.
So you have so many beefs with the way the government runs things why are you still here? Obviously you don't like the government. 
Back to health care. The US does little with preventative measures. In many European nations you are required to have an annual physical and if you do not your premiums go up. In the US you are lucky to even get one covered by insurance.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Are you serious?

That's the entire plan from day one.

We pay into it today do the elderly can take out of it today.

It's always been a monetary revolving door. It functions EXACTLY as it should.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Ahem maybe you should have read the article 




> NIH is the largest single funder of basic medical research in the United States; the research it supports provides the foundation of knowledge that drives innovation and improves health.
> 
> For the past five years the NIH budget has been flat or reduced. As a result NIH has been forced to fund a diminishing percentage of grants submitted. Researchers are being forced to close their laboratories.



In other words, you're still wrong.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



In other words you still cannot read and understand a simple statement or interpret it correctly.
No wonder you are a leftist.  You have the IQ of a turnip.  You have no ability to read and make logical deductions from what you've just read.  You are utterly worthless.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



This is why 3rd world dictators and others come here?
King Hussein Heads To U.s. For Medical Treatment - Chicago Tribune
Yemeni President Heads To US For Medical Treatment | Fox News
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0Lx4nB60Vo]Saudi King Heads to U.S. for Medical Treatment - YouTube[/ame]

Your post is a bunch of unsupported and wrong generalizations.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


That would be known as breach of contract...A legal tort.




Vidi said:


> Or they end up so far in debt, that it takes a decade or more to dig themselves out of the whole or worse lose everything they've worked their entire lived for.


Vague anecdotal talking point, that only works on gullible sob sisters.



Vidi said:


> As far as those who enter the field to make money...you think doctors work for free in France or Germany?
> 
> You think people don't get rich in Europe?


Red Herring on two counts...Medical professionals in America deserve to make what the market for their services will bear (rather than what some bureaucratic schedule says they should make) and nobody said anything about getting rich.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



And there's the typical " I'm taking my ball and going home " right wing tantrum.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Dead people can't sue, Odd.

Medical professionals "deserve"?

So they're entitled to a certain wage...interesting. So you support entitlements it just depends on who the entitlements go to.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> So you have so many beefs with the way the government runs things why are you still here? Obviously you don't like the government.



No chance that a comment like that will come back to bite your ass.....Nope, not a chance. 



Katiegrrl0 said:


> Back to health care. The US does little with preventative measures. In many European nations you are required to have an annual physical and if you do not your premiums go up. In the US you are lucky to even get one covered by insurance.



So you have so many beefs with the way medical services are delivered why are you still here? Obviously, you like European socialism much better than freedom and free enterprise.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Wow.  Still proving me right.
I think you are a waste of time and bandwidth.  You have nothing to contribute here.  You are too stupid to contribute anything except your ignorant opinion.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Jesus H tapdancing Christ!...Is there a bullshit mythical scenario that you haven't swallowed whole?

Where are the hospitals just shoving patients out onto the street to die because their insurance just dropped them when they got sick?

C'mon....Start naming them.



Vidi said:


> Medical professionals "deserve"?
> 
> So they're entitled to a certain wage...interesting. So you support entitlements it just depends on who the entitlements go to.


WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Hehe you make me giggle

Also, I understand the difference between medical and biomedical.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes....-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/

45,000 deaths a year.



> The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance  as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 22, 2012)

Pure bullshit.

The uninsured have the same access to medical care as anyone else..They just don't have access to getting a third party to pay the freight for their treatment....On top of that, a rather large portion of the uninsured qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and  other state-run state programs and  private programs for the indigent.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 22, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Pure bullshit.
> 
> The uninsured have the same access to medical care as anyone else..They just don't have access to getting a third party to pay the freight for their treatment....On top of that, a rather large portion of the uninsured qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and  other state-run state programs and  private programs for the indigent.



Yes some people qualify. Some people don't

And if they can't pay, they die.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=14438171

You can say tough, they can't pay they die. At least that's a position.

But to deny that this is actually happening is nonsense.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



What did I generalize? According to the WCO the US ranks 37th in care. So how did I generalize that? Yemen is ranked 120th so it is easy to see why they would transfer someone to the 37th. It is better care.
So when you said I was making generalization it was you that made statements without knowledge, in fact. You might want to do the research before criticizing anyone else. It makes you look foolish. 
What you get in the US is the highest cost for the 37th best. Seems like the US pays to much for to little.

Source for WCO rankings: World Health Organization ranking of healthcare systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > So you have so many beefs with the way the government runs things why are you still here? Obviously you don't like the government.
> ...



Being a Socialist and having dual citizenship in the US and France I have experienced both systems and in fact the care in France is far superior. In the case of health care the free market is outrageous. People should not go bankrupt or forced into a choice between food and medicines.  If you think that's a good idea good for you. If you have millions in your bank account and can afford less care for more money that's good as well.
Many people may not be so lucky.
So in the end your statement is true. I have knowledge based beefs with the health care system in the US. I also do not care for the free market system.
No my statement will not come back to bite me in the ass. If I were ill and needed treatment long term treatment I would fly to France and have it done. Why would you think that earlier statement would bite me in the ass. Perhaps it's because you assumed to much without knowing my life situation.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Pure bullshit.
> 
> The uninsured have the same access to medical care as anyone else..They just don't have access to getting a third party to pay the freight for their treatment....On top of that, a rather large portion of the uninsured qualify for Medicare, Medicaid, and  other state-run state programs and  private programs for the indigent.



You forgot to mention that the many who do not qualify for the programs you mentioned end up being billed for the care. They end up bankrupt. They can't afford the medications so they get sick again. It becomes a cycle of illness. 

The Universal heath care systems are not free. Taxes pay for the system. They come from the pocket of the worker. Just as your health insurance premiums come from your pocket. The difference is that you have to by the CEO of you insurance company (at the risk of your life) a new boat and cars every few years. I don't.
You pay more than triple for some services. I guess that's the American way. If it costs a lot it must be good. Well the US can do better. 37th is not terrible but there are 36 better and all of them cost less. Go figure.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Pure bullshit.
> ...



You do know that health insurance doesn't include dental?  You have to have separate dental insurance which nobody in the government has addressed?>

 Or eye exams.  Or hearing loss, etc.?   (For which there is little or no insurance available for most people and the government doesn't seem to care about that either.)

And yet most people who need glasses or dental work done or hearing aids seem to be able to get them.

The guy who died because he couldn't afford to have a tooth pulled CHOSE to take the risk because there was help available for hm if he had asked.

And no amount of government cradle to grave benevolence is going to eliminate the anecdotal exceptions that will exist no matter how much money we pour into the black holes of government programs.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


he died from the infection since he did not have the insurance to afford the medication. that would have been part of his health care plan, not his dental plan.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Most medical advances and innovation come from the US. That's something we really need to consider... that innovation is created because we have a profit driven sector.
> ...



How much new medical technology do the English, Canadian and Cuban public health care sectors purchase every year?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



*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*

You're right, people should be able to wait until they're sick and then buy health insurance.
Moron.

*but i guess youre ok with denying people health care...... that makes you a real christian*

What does ignorance of economics make you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

francoHFW said:


> Yes, we have the best health care in the world, if you're a BILLIONNAIRE.
> 
> Otherwise, UNTIL THIS YEAR, thanks to ACA, insurers could throw you off for technicalities, or your charges could drive you into bankruptcy. 750k bankruptcies (3/4 people WITH insurance) and 45k DYING because they had no insurance- ALL UNKNOWN in any other modern country. AND a huge toll on our global competitiveness...
> 
> And the traffic accident stuff is total blather...



Yeah, people living under nationalized healthcare never die while on a long waiting list.
Moron.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Our healthcare is number one in the world if all the facts and criteria are on an even playing field. Something the WHO really doesn't do.  Even our child mortality would be a lot higher in the world if the WHO used the same critertia that we use.
We have more auto deaths and more homicide deaths than any other place in the world.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> snakedoc said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



That's why Greece is bankrupt?
Because Goldman lied?
Because Greece was admitted into the EU?
Or because Greece spends too much? LOL!


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


apparently that post went way over your head....


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Do you have any ability to think critically?  Your rankings put Italy at #2, San Marino at #3 and Andorra at #4.  Do you honestly think San Marino delivers state of the art care and the US does not?
Their criteria stack the deck.  We see the reality: people come to the US for medical treatment.  They do not go to San Marino.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I did let your idiocy fly over my head.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Clueless teabagger?
Who mentioned Barney Frank?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


i guess your avatar really is a self portrait


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Shaman said:
> ...



I guess your name is what they did to your brain.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 23, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



Deception:

Entitlement programs are bringing Europe to it's knees. National Health Care has become unsustainable.* If you don't get it Germany, Great Britain and France finally have.*
*Germany*
Chancellor Merkel, something of a political acrobat, was previously allied in coalition with leftist Social Democrats. She's now resisting calls from the Free Democrats to get off the state-pulled health-care train. The FDP's spokesman on health, Daniel Bahr, wants a "shift in direction away from state-run medicine." Why? Because "the current financial figures have showed us that the health-care fund doesn't work."
Germany's Socialized Health-Care System Isn't Working - WSJ.com

*Great Britain*
In a document, or white paper, outlining the plan, the government admitted that the changes would &#8220;cause significant disruption and loss of jobs.&#8221; But it said: &#8220;The current architecture of the health system has developed piecemeal, involves duplication and is unwieldy. Liberating the N.H.S., and putting power in the hands of patients and clinicians, means we will be able to effect a radical simplification, and remove layers of management.&#8221;
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

*France*
France Fights Universal Care's High Cost - WSJ.com


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


all three of those country's still pay less for their health care then the US.

The UK spends $2,560 per person
Germany spends $3,174 per person
France spends $3,040 per person
The US spends $6,096 per person
(as of 2007)
Per Capita Health Expenditures by Country, 2007 &mdash; Infoplease.com

The US spends $7,960 per person
(as of 2009)
Spending: U.S. spends whopping amount on healthcare - Los Angeles Times

Comparing U.S. Healthcare Spending with Other OECD Countries - Seeking Alpha

so when those countries end up spending roughly as much as we do, then we can compare apples to apples. since they spend less than half of what we spend, an increase in costs would need to jump 100% in order to have a direct comparison.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



They why don't you move to one of these places where you can live in pure bliss.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...


so your solution to a problem is not to fix it, but to cut and run..  genius.... not wonder the right never gets anything done.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...




I understand it perfectly. 2 years ago, my brother spent a week in the ICU after he almost died from an infection that no dentist would treat because my brother was unemployed and had no insurance.

There are thousands of anecdotes, just like that. 

But as someone who's worked with his hands his entire life, I've learned, you fill in the cracks where you find them.

You don't just throw your hands in the air and say," Well, that's just the way it is."

That's a quitter/loser mantra. 

Imagine if our Founding Fathers had just thrown their hands in the air and accepted it all. 

No, they were men of action, as we must be again.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Couldn't your brother afford insurance, or did he just elect not to purchase insurance?

There are a lot of Americans who elect not to have insurance because of their young age.

Affordable insurance can be obtained with the help of government through some mandates and getting out of the way of competition.  The government insurance is not the answer to this problem we're facing.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



Those countries are not in the best shape economically partly due to the healthcare they have.  Germany rations their healthcare....and some of the doctors have to close their doors until the next funding distribution.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



You are living in a delusional world of your own design. Please stay there forever.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




No he had lost his job when the company he worked for shipped the jobs from his plant down to Mexico.

I don't know if anyone's ever seen how much it costs to extend health benefits after you've been laid off, but it eats up more than half of unemployment. Getting on a government program takes time, and though he had applied, it still took two months to get on it. The infection hit him about three weeks in. His employer hadn't offered dental, so my brother always paid for his kids to go first and then of money was left over, he would go himself. It had been awhile this time around.

I had offered to help him out when he lost his job, but my brother doesn't like charity and thought he'd be back to work right away. 

He had to be forced by his wife and kids to even go to the emergency room the night he did go. He said he'd wait till morning, but in reality, he knew the bill would be more than he could pay and didn't want that over their heads as well. 

The doctors told us if he had waited even that one extra night, he'd be dead now.

He is since better. He dd find a job almost six months after the incident, driving trick and has since been promoted to head of his office, which he says is just a fancy was to say he's the dispatcher. 

The bill for 1 week hospital stay that saved his life was almost $300,000 dollars, which will hang over his head the rest of his life.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Yep, our country is made of people who did that very thing.  Left conditions they couldl not change to a better life here in America.   The reason the right never gets anything done is because you idiot liberals block us at every turn.   But, no matter, I do as I please and strive to do the opposite of what any liberal wants.  I don't "go green" by the way either.  Actually I go brown.  Most days. I drive a nice big car that eats lots of gas.  I use nongreen wood -- anything against the liberal teachings.  I'm not a vegetarian either. I believe in hunting too.  In fact:  "save an elk, eat a liberal" or "save a cow, eat a vegetarian"


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


how many times has the GOP used filibusters in the senate since Obama took office??
GOP Filibuster Record: Republicans Using Obstruction Tool With Astonishing Frequency
The Heathen Republican: On Unprecedented Republican Filibusters of Obama

and you claim that its liberals who are holding up change? bwhahahahaha  thats a good one.....

so your philosophy is to do the exact oppositie of what liberals do? thats a good governing philosophy.... im against anything they are for and for anything they are against. im glad youve learned to think for self...


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


Well for the first two years never because the Dems had a filibuster proof majority.
ANy other stupid questions?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


the filibuster proof majority lasted 134 days on paper and 49 days in reality. 
The Democrats&#8217; 134-Day Supermajority | PoliPundit.com

Obamacare is the product of a brief moment of total Democratic dominance in Washington. Key to that dominance was a 60-seat, filibuster-proof Senate majority. It wasn&#8217;t a sure bet for Democrats; despite victories in 2008, the party&#8217;s hopes for that majority depended on the outcome of a contested race in Minnesota. After a controversial recount, Al Franken became the 60th Democratic senator on July 7, 2009, giving Democrats an unassailable edge.
But that majority disappeared just 49 days later when, on August 25, 2009, Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy died.

Al Franken made that 60th senator but was not made a full senator until july 7th. 49 days later Ted Kennedy died. 

anything you need to be proven wrong on?


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Perhaps the government should have a safety net for people that are in the position that your brother was in.  It wouldn't take such a broad implementation as what is being thrown at us.  I believe that most Americans would be in favor of a safety net approach regarding the issue.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

It seems that some on this thread would rather play politics and a gotchya than try and debate an issue.  I'm not talking about you, Vida.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Perhaps the government should have a safety net for people that are in the position that your brother was in.  It wouldn't take such a broad implementation as what is being thrown at us.  I believe that most Americans would be in favor of a safety net approach regarding the issue.



This is the problem with almost every health care discussion. We have two distinct, and largely separate, problems with health care. One involves safety net issues - what to do about health care for the poor and indigent, and the other is what to do about spiraling health care inflation. The answer to those questions don't have much overlap, and tend to conflict. We should at least be specific about which problem we're trying to solve when proposing solutions.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the government should have a safety net for people that are in the position that your brother was in.  It wouldn't take such a broad implementation as what is being thrown at us.  I believe that most Americans would be in favor of a safety net approach regarding the issue.
> ...



Agreed, I think we could have open borders between the states for competition and have a safety net for the less fortunate.
I have always said that the government is part of the solution, but the government isn't the solution.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...


yet no one in those countries has to declare bankruptcy or lose their home due to medical bills.
how much better would our economy be if people did lose everything due to medical bills?

» Medical Illness Causes a Bankruptcy Every 15 Seconds - Better Bankruptcy Blog

According to one research study, illness and medical bills were linked to at least 62.1% of all personal bankruptcies in 2007. Based on 2010 bankruptcy statistics, medical illnesses was responsible for 940,000 bankruptcies which involved over 2.547 million Americans.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.


health care is a huge issue. i ended up in the ER due to food poising while on a business trip (in Chicago of all places). if i had not had insurance, my 3 hours stay would have cost $4500. what average american has $4500 sitting in the bank if they get food poisoning and end up in the hospital?


----------



## Ropey (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.
> ...



No one is saying health care is not an issue.

However, expanding government controls in order to deal with this issue is another issue.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Just because the individuals aren't...the entire countries aren't far from bankruptcies in many cases. 

Also:


Nearly all hospital-based doctors are salaried, and those salaries are part of hospital budgets that are negotiated each year between hospitals and "sickness funds"  the 240 nonprofit insurance companies that cover nearly nine out of 10 Germans through their jobs. (About 10 percent, who are generally higher income, opt out of the main system to buy insurance from for-profit companies. A small fraction get tax-subsidized care.)

Office-based doctors in Germany operate much like U.S. physicians do. They're private entrepreneurs who get a fee from insurers for every visit and every procedure they perform. The big difference is that groups of office-based physicians in every region negotiate with insurers to arrive at collective annual budgets.

Those doctor budgets get divided into quarterly amounts  a limited pot of money for each region. Once doctors collectively use up that money, that's it  there's no more until the next quarter.
Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs : NPR


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



He has a hard time comprehending what is actually being said, Ropey.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.
> ...



I had food poisoning...I just rode the wave with it, and ate the next day.  Didn't cost me anything but the time for a phone call to the place where I ate and let them know.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


whats your solution?

the free market itself has already shown it cant control costs. health care costs have risen 14% on average since 1990.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The really frustrating irony, in my view, is that the congressional power being held up as justification for the insurance mandate, the commerce clause, could be used for its intended purpose here to bust up the legal barriers to competition implemented at the state level. That's exactly how federal government should be intervening, not by micromanaging how individuals pay for their health care.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


yup, well when you end up violent vomiting for over and hour straight, they usually call 911. i was just fortunate that it wasnt as serious as it looked. that didnt change the fact that was in the ER for 3 hours. and had a huge hospital bill


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I was pulling off the freeway going from Spokane to Coeur d'Alene vomiting, but I knew it wasn't life threatening....uncomfortable...yes.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You and I are mirroring the same when it comes to the solution of healthcare, dblack.


The politicians know that it would be a solution, but that's not what's on their agenda.  This is why I feel it's more about the expansion of government and not about the people.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



The individual mandate is a fundamental shift in choice with the oversight a strong shade of a Marxist socialist attachment.  At least Romney's mandate was a State mandate and that means it was left to the State to decide.  A Federal Individual Mandate legislated by the Judiciary takes even that choice away.

Shades of Roe vs Wade but in far deeper waters.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I too contracted Salmonella from the Fair.  Didn't cost me $4500.  Push Gatorade and ride it out.  If you go into the ER anywhere and you have no insurance, they will still treat you.  They can give you samples of meds and write off the rest of it.  That's the law. They HAVE to treat you whether you can pay or not.  Wahlgreen's and Walmart give you quite a few generic meds for $4.00.  Oh but i forgot liberals hate Walmart and Wahlgreen's might just be run by rich people.  Oh well.  Drink gatorade then the next time.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


apparently you dont know much about how the health care industry works....


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


the illness isnt the point dumbass, the cost is still the cost. fortunately i had insurance, which is what it is there for. so your solution is when you get sick and something is the matter to tough it out? dont ever go to a doctor and get medication or medical advice? well hell then, why do we need health care at all? just tough it out... things will be fine.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Honey, I've worked in the healthcare industry for 42 years.  I am afraid I DO know just how it works.  You are talking to the wrong person here, sweet cheeks.   


Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act
The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act requires hospitals to provide treatment in life-threatening emergencies and when patients are in active labor, even if the patients have no insurance and even if they have no ability to pay for treatment. Hospitals don't have to provide treatment for things that aren't life-threatening, but they often will. For instance, if you go to an emergency room for a headache, it's probably not life-threatening; but just in case your headache is caused by a brain tumor, most emergency rooms will treat you. They're required to at least have a qualified health care professional assess you to determine if your condition is an emergency.



Read more: Can a Hospital Refuse Treatment Without Insurance? | eHow.com Can a Hospital Refuse Treatment Without Insurance? | eHow.com


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


if we wanted a strong state government and a weak central government, the south should have won the civil war. instead its the other way around. if you dont like it, ask your state to secede or move to another country that is strong on state rights, not national rights.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Who is "we"?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


working as a janitor at the hospital doesnt county. 

the hospital charges you for use of the facility, ($2500)the doctor charges you for the use of his time ($1000), when a nurse pushes meds they charge you for the nurse to actually push the plunger down. ($200 x 2), the hospital charges you for the medication (varies but mine was roughly $400 per IV). if i had to pay cash for this, i would have told them no, but no doctor says well my services are this much, the hospital will charge you this much, each drug is this much. you dont get a fucking a menu at the hospital which shows you how much services costs. if youre so much smarter than the doctor that treated me, why arent you a doctor and charging these exorbitant amounts to treat food poisoning?

and oh youve finally realized that its the law the hospitals treat you no matter what. so when you cant pay, it costs the rest of us an increase in premiums. 


and im not your honey, bitch. so stop using cute little pet names.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...


we mean the majority of the nation.. to the victor goes the spoils......


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I honestly think the mandate is that safety net but only when its coupled with the 80-85% must be paid out on benefits stipulaton AND a public option for the unemployed/very poor.

Alot of people dont really understand how its all going to work because its implemented in stages and all implimentation hasnt gone into effect yet. 

By requiring that insurers pay ouy 80-85% ( depending on the plan ) of premiums back out in benefits, it means the insurers will either:

a) refund money ( required by August 1 of every year ) that has nto been spent on benefits

b) lower their rates for the next fiscal year

By paying out 80-85% of the premiums as benefits, this lowers their profit margin. To maximize their margine the insurers will actually want to lower rates the next year in order to avoid the cost of the refund process.

OR

c) Insurers instead of dropping premiums will choose to cover more procedures in order to reach that 80-85% payout.

My wife has been in the insurance game for over a decade. Ive browsed through all the explaination her company has been sending home with her to get her up to date on how the new system works. 

I was actually against the mandate without a public option attached until I saw that this creates prices controls that keep us from being gouged by the private companies.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



So,  you presume to speak for the majority and then tell me what to do if I don't like it.


----------



## UpAndAbout (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



The hospital writes it off. They can write off so much, take it off their taxes in the end.

You don't like pet names?  You've obvious got the IQ of a little pet mouse.  You don't have to spell out what a hospital charges for everyone.  I know full well what it is.  Sure our premiums go up, but the hospitals usually have provisions for people without insurance.  I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.  It doesn't make me want the government to take over my healthcare.


----------



## Syphon (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...


i guess stupid bitch fits for you then. 

so stupid bitch, got any proof that insurance companies and hospitals done raise rates to cover the costs to treat the uninsured?
Health Coverage Costs Rise Due to Uninsured, U.S. Study Says - Bloomberg

About 45 million Americans lacked health-care coverage in 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Washington-based Families USA said people without insurance pay about a third of their health-care costs, leaving doctors and hospitals this year with more than $43 billion in unpaid bills. Health providers raise prices to other patients to make up the difference, according to the report.
``The large and increasing number of uninsured Americans is no longer simply an altruistic concern on behalf of those without health coverage but a matter of self-interest for everyone,'' said Families USA Executive Director Ron Pollack in a statement.

hmmm stupid bitch looks stupid after all.....


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Looks like sweet cheeks got her panties all in a wad.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...



While the law is certainly on the books, I can tell you from experience people CAN and WILL be turned away.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> UpAndAbout said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Sphincter says what?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > UpAndAbout said:
> ...



That's what his pimp calls him.....


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



We still won't be able to afford this...obamacare is the road to UHS, and that is the golden pot for this administration. If Obamacare isn't deemed unconstitutional by the SC, it will be years before we can layer away this debacle if at all...at a hefty deficit.
There is no question in my mind that in 20 years this healthcare bill will be transformed to a single payer system.....just how this administration wanted it.  I know you like UHS, but I sure don't and won't.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a little tidbit:  It costs $125 out of pocket to pay to have excessive ear wax removed......it takes place in the doctor's office and takes less than 15 minutes from examination to removal to chit chat to see ya next year and pay at the door.  Now in my town, the doctor that does this does NOT take personal checks UNLESS you have insurance.  He does take cash and credit cards.
> ...



And here we have this faux "rabbi" demonstrate the sheer stupidity of those who knee-jerk to healthcare reform at the prompting of the insurance companies and the absurd propaganda spewed by libertarian lunkheads and neocon numbskulls and teabaggers.

Let's deconstruct this "rabbi's" ignorant mental flatulence:  unemployment insurance is paid for BY THE PEOPLE.  You work for a company to create profit for that company...the owner takes a fraction of that profit and invests it in unimployment insurance...which enables said employees to continue to contribute to the economic infrastructure (pay bills, buy food, etc.) should the company fold or downsize.  The gov't REGULATES this process...the gov't BY, FOR AND OF THE PEOPLE.

Next, the uninsured.....there is a plethora of information that points out a simple fact....if an uninsured person goes to the hospital, the taxpayers eventually pick up the bill.  To prevent this, you have private and public insurance offered to the people, which is regulated by the gov't.  As Wendall Potter and Dr. Peelo (among others) have pointed out, private insurance companies bereft of adequate gov't oversight have a tendency to screw over their customers.  The current healthcare reform bill curtails insurance company chicanery, and essentially makes healthcare available to more people...and if you refuse healthcare insurance in general, then you pay a small tax FOR WHEN YOU WILL EVENTUALLY NEED HOSPITAL CARE.  Now if you're one of those jackasses who thinks he'll go from 8 to 80 without a medical incident and then just suddenly drop dead, good luck with that fantasy...because the historical statistics are just not backing you up, let alone the potential thousands who think just like you (if they did, then the health insurance companies would be far less in number and profitability than they are).

And finally, the bigoted little barb that anyone who is in financial dire straits or on a tight budget is there because of sloth or gluttony or stupidity.  Obviously, the "rabbi" was in a deep dark hole for the last 20 years or so when people who did everything right (prudent savings account, diverse investment portfolio, smart shopping consumers) got royally SCREWED by the system (the S&L scandal, ENRON, Madoff, the Wall St./mortgage banker scandal, corporate outsourcing).  Now suddendly these folk who may have had like minded ideals like our "rabbi" here find themselves actually making choices as to whether to pay the mortgage/rent or the health insurance company that covers a needed dental visit, eye exam or (as I pointed out) ear exam.

So once again, with a little general review based in reality, we see that the author of the subject title of this thread along with our right wing rabid "rabbi" STILL have their heads firmly encased in the posterior of such neocon/teabagger/libertarian pundits and politicians as Limbaugh, Kristoff, Rand and Ryan.  Carry on!


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



The stats even beyond the WHO do not say that. i would need to see something in the way of evidence that backs up your claim. Thanks


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I did not produce the stats. I read them and provided them. You have provided nothing to state that this is not so.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



The disparity in cost per patient is because their costs are lower.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

UpAndAbout said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



I would certainly travel to France to have a major condition cared for.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > snakedoc said:
> ...



Get your head out of Limbaugh's ass and READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what I wrote, chuckles.

But since you're too dense, let me dumb it down for you:  Greece's financial state should have made it non-applicable to the EU....but with a little help from Goldman Sachs, they got in....which essentially made them a grave risk to the EU market.

The EU bought into the toxic packages that our banks were putting on the market a'la the housing loan debacle...so when that bubble burst, the EU suffered as well, and Greece being a weak link to begin with, went down.

Do some honest homework to verify what I'm saying, chuckles....because I'm damned tired of doing the legwork for willfully ignorant jokers like you.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



Don't forget they're going broke, also.  Germany has a real problem going on with rationing, and the rich buy private healthcare insurance.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



In the US there are many that are not covered. In the nations where there is universal health care everyone is covered. The US gives people the option. If you work a low end job and don't have insurance offered trying to buy it yourself would in many cases more than the person earns. How does one purchase insurance when there is no money?


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

PS....the WHO numbers are really deceptive.  FYI


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



Do you have links to your information? Without some source the claim is invalid.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



We have already discussed this, take some time and catch up on this issue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*private insurance companies bereft of adequate gov't oversight *

Anyone who thinks this is the case is too dumb to breathe.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Do you actually know how Universal heath care works?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...


Another dishonest, disingenuous, bullshit socialist yammering point.

Americans spend more on health care for the best reason in the world: Because we can.

We purchase more on lasik, hair transplants, lipo, and numerous other elective procedures, all _*because we can*_.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That safety net would be universal health care all would be covered.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I hope you trust NPR.

Nearly all hospital-based doctors are salaried, and those salaries are part of hospital budgets that are negotiated each year between hospitals and "sickness funds"  the 240 nonprofit insurance companies that cover nearly nine out of 10 Germans through their jobs. (About 10 percent, who are generally higher income, opt out of the main system to buy insurance from for-profit companies. A small fraction get tax-subsidized care.)

Office-based doctors in Germany operate much like U.S. physicians do. They're private entrepreneurs who get a fee from insurers for every visit and every procedure they perform. The big difference is that groups of office-based physicians in every region negotiate with insurers to arrive at collective annual budgets.

Those doctor budgets get divided into quarterly amounts * a limited pot of money for each region*. Once doctors collectively use up that money, that's it  there's no more until the next quarter.

It's a powerful incentive for doctors to exercise restraint  not to provide more care than is necessary. *But often, the pot of money is exhausted before the end of the quarter.*That's why Leibl is chronically angry.

"I don't get paid at the moment," he said recently, near the end of a quarter. "I haven't been paid for what I'm doing for the last two or three weeks."

He has to wait until the beginning of the next quarter before the sickness funds will start paying the bills he submits. *Some German doctors simply close their doors and take a vacation at the end of every quarter.*
Keeping German Doctors On A Budget Lowers Costs : NPR


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Ooopsie!


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.



It's about profits for the insurance companies.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



The EU had their own housing loan debacles.
See Ireland and Spain.

Still waiting for you to prove that Greece's economy was screwed by Goldman.
Or that Greece bought any US mortgages. 
Keep trying!


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



No....not for everyone...just the people who fall through the cracks.

At pennies on the dollar compared to UHS for all.  It doesn't have to be all or nothing.  it doesn't have to be just government...it's better to have both government and private involved


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.
> ...



The top two percent that don't need to pay a few more dollars in taxes have $4500 in the bank and then some. They have your $4500 as well.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Government already deals with health care with VA and Medicare and other social programs.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.
> ...



So?  It could be competition for insurance companies also if the government would let it happen.
I get so tired of how people like you think private companies/corporations are evil.  They helped our country become the greatest nation on Earth.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Poorly.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I really feel that the healthcare issue isn't so much about the people, but it is about expanding the government giving way too much power over our lives.
> ...


Oh, Jesus H tapdancing Christ....Another one. 

Yet, somehow or another, forcing everyone to have the federal gubmint as the insurance monopoly is going to make it allllll better?

Ever wonder why the hell is it socialists just _*hate*_ monopolies, except when those monopolies are run by gubmint?


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Running up deficits in the process...please be thorough in you posts about this.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Like the IRS, only with your life in their hands.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Thank you for the article. I am not saying this is the answer to their current difficulty but perhaps when the new contract was made there was little foresight used in expanding the costs. After the next budget negotiations on medical we will see if the problem still exists. I doubt that it will.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Really? 

So it's more about government ideology than it is about healthcare for the people...isn't it?
That's the same view as the politicians.  No credibility on your behalf...too bad


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



All they need to do is double down on more government "revenue"...that will resolve the problem.

See how this works with healthcare?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Goldman Sachs was not the CAUSE of Greeces financial troubles, but they did contribute and profit off of it.

( whihc is not the same as causing it )

Goldman Sachs role in Greece a real scandal


Theres tons of articles about it with a quick "Greece Goldman Sachs" google, but the long and the short of it is Greece was in financial trouble, they used Goldman Sachs to lie about their true situtatiion, Goldman helped them lie, then bet against Greece and made a huge profit doing it.

Some may say that what Goldman Sachs did was unethical because they basically used insider information to bet against their own client, but they did not CAUSE Greece to collapse.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Oooopie what. I asked for a link he provided one. It explains a situation. It does not cover the causes and the remedies. Do you have any idea how those costa and expenses are negotiated. Medical care is contracted. If in fact the number was made to low after the life of the contract this can happen. It happened in Sweden years ago and was quickly corrected in the next contract. Maybe you would do well to learn something about the workings of the world before you decide to chuckle. A German article or information would be better but at least he provided a picture of what has happened.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



You made a judgment about what I think. I do not think they are evil at all that's how the US works and has flourished for years. I tend to think these days the profits have grown far to much and made costs outrageous and in many cases unaffordable.

I think this is how it works with insurance companies. They fight tooth and nail to cover as little as possible. A lot of preventative care has been taken away. Keeping people healthy is a priority the US has forgotten about. The healthy person misses less work. They cause lines at the doctors office and waste time for doctors.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Thats the way it is in many of so called socialist government run health care programs. A combination of public and private though there are some difference, its very simlar to what we have now in the US




> The Bismarck Model
> Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system  the insurers are called sickness funds  usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction.
> 
> Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they dont make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model  Germany has about 240 different funds  tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides.
> ...



There are only four basic health care systems in the world. If youd like to read up on the four, click the link below.

Health Care Systems - Four Basic Models


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Maybe you would do well to move the hell to Europe, if you think that their cradle-to-grave moocher state is such great shakes.

You socialist mewlers remind me of people who moved into Steamboat because it was different from Vail and Aspen, then spend the rest of their time there trying to make it more like Vail and Aspen.

You do realize that our ancestors left Europe, with little more than they could carry onto the ship, for some very compelling reasons, don't you?


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The US works on profit structure. To take it away at this point makes the whole nation fall apart. The amount one takes as profit is what causes the disparity in wealth and the high costs for medical care.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Do you understand anything about being taxed for this type of social program.
First you have an income tax...then you have some steep gas taxes, then you have a VAT, etc, etc.
Keep your feet on the ground, would you?


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



So you must think insurance companies run at a loss. Every American would contribute as they do now to insurance companies. The government would be the insurer. With a larger pool instead of just those in the highest risk groups there would be more funds.  But since you believe obviously that insurance companies run at a loss you may be correct.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


As I thought someone that knows nothing making snide remarks. The picture and name suit you.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Bullshit.

The in-state defacto insurance monopolies and complete insulation of those receiving the service and those paying for it, are why the costs have escalated...Lest we leave out Medicare/Medicaid, which are financial train wrecks.

You really don't know diddly-poo about basic economics, do you?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



And thats what we are getting with the Affordable Care Act. The government isnt running the health care industry with it, its simply setting standards by which more people get covered, the mandate with the 80-85% payout _should_ drive premium costs down ( but the jury is still out on that one. There have been right wing anf left wing economists who have gone both ways on it. meaning some left wingers say it wont and some right wingers say it will. At least we know theyre being honest instead of partisan even if they cant give us a definitive answer ).

Eventually though, if we set a goal to cover everyone, as Eisenhower wanted and Nixon proposed, the we will most likely have to expand medicare.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Yeah, whatever....I'm not the one here with blind faith in bureaucratic monopoly, you are.

You want your medical care handled by the same fatasses who run the DMV, that's your funeral...Just don't wave a gun in my face and expect me to like paying for it.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



He asked who had the money. Do you think the top two percent don't have the money in their bank account?
Please don't insult all of us about credibility. I asked for a link and you provide a quip from NPR that tells us nothing about what actually happened to the German system and you talk about credibility. LOL not this is funny. That would be like me posting a link to Bill Maher talking about the cause of inflation.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


More pure crap.

What Obolshevikcare care is doing is running all private insurers out of the market, leaving everyone with only one "option".


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Would you kindly address the deficit part of my post?  You're a socialist...I get that from your earlier post.  But there comes a time when the credit card has to be paid....and we don't have the money for it.  I tried to show you that these countries that have a huge socialist lean....they're not making it economically, neither would we.  Get a grip on reality.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Like Oddball a lot of talk and zero substance.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


I knew we'd get there eventually.

It's all about envy....Nothing more.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Piss off.

We're the ones arguing against monopoly.....Sucks to be you.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Did I say that I didn't have a home in Europe? See when you tell someone to move you have nothing to debate about as you seem to know very little.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


If you have a home in Europe, go live there and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



I just knew NPR is too radically right for you, but thanks for proving my point about your position.  Perhaps you're more of a communist than a socialist.  If you are, please accept my apology by calling you a socialist.

The guy with the bank account doesn't have Syphon's 4500.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news to you...you needed to know.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Yes I do. You would no longer be paying insurance premiums and that would be less than the actual taxes. Do you understand about being taxed for this and what they would cost? Your business that pays the insurance premiums now would pay for the universal health care premium. So tell me what tax you are speaking about.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Seems the only thing you've brought to the table is your opinion...no substance...none, zero, nadda.   Typical with moochers like yourself.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The in state mini monopolies are definitely causing some of the rise in prices but theres more to it than that. 

We have an aging baby boomer population which creates more demand for medical services thus drives the cost up. Our system is more corrective as opposed to preventive medicine. Preventive medicine is cheaper in the long run which is why insurance companies were beginning to cover more preventive procedures even before the ACA was passed, and finally while some reports ( from the CBO ) say that mecial malpractice insurance only accoutns for a 2% rise in costs, other reports ( specifically from the AMA ) say that it accounts for much mnore than that saying that the CBO report focused only on corrective medicine and ignored prevenetive. 

So I agree with you that those mini monopolies are bad and ARE driving up costs but they are not the only factor.

the question though is this:

Those companies have those monopolies because they have deals with the individual states. If the federal government tries to force interstate competition, they are then encroaching on states rights. Is this a case where that would be acceptable, or should the change be forced within the state governments themselves? 

And if so, how is that accomplished, with groups like ALEC out there working nation wide against such a thing?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Because if there's anything that monopoly -especially that run by poiliticians and bureaucrats- _*just screams*_, it's lower costs and better service!


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Trust me on this, person, who brings nothing to the table, but a hand looking for a handout.   At the end of the day, I have more in my pocket with my fully funded healthcare than I would with a government single payer program that is *FULLY FUNDED*


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



The US does not work on profit? That would be a surprise to everyone.
Medicare is the highest risk group in the US costs are high as are Medicaid patients as well as VA.
I am wondering if you know anything at all except how to spell and string words together in a semblance of order. 
I know more than your friend Meister that has no idea what the taxes would be and where they would come from for the coverage. he even thinks the insurance operate at a loss. So if you want to talk about someone who doesn't know anything about economics you should mention him or her.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



No you trust some insurer who is looking for his next Yacht to handle your care.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



I trust an insurer looking for his next yacht more than I do a policitian.  No question about that.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Actually, *IF* ( and its a biiiiig if ), swicthing to UHC could drive costs down, it would leave more money on the table to drive the economy, thus creating more income for the individual and more tax revenue for the goevrnment.

But its a BIG if.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Sorry to burst your bubble on many levels about myself with your projecting.  I would love to see a company run a profit as to a government running a deficit.  
Something you and your peabrain mind just can't seem to grasp is the fact that if I don't like the company...I can look for another one.  I can't go looking for another government.
Please don't post like and ignorant communist.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


We also have people like you treating insurance (that which should be used for unforeseeable maladies and trauma) as defacto pre-paid medical, for any and every single contact with anyone that has lays any hands on anyone for anything. 

You want an annual check-up?...Pay for it!
You want a chiro adjustment?...Pay for it!
You want in vitro?...Pay for it!
You want to go to drug/alcohol treatment?...Pay for it!
You want  BC pills?...Pay for them!
You get a 'roid from sitting on your ass for too long?..Pay for it!

But _*noooooooooooooooo!*_...You see anyone in a white lab coat, and the socialistic moocher class needs someone else has to pay the bill!


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



I'm not a gambler, Vida


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


There it is again....Pure, unvarnished, naked envy.

Thanks for lending me the insight into your petty covetous soul.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I caught that when she was responding to one of Syphon's posts.  Sure did tip her hand on it


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Sorry I missed that. There are deficits yes and much of this is due to the high risk groups the government is insuring. There is no soft group where they pay premiums without much pay out from the carrier. This has the government paying out more per person then insurance companies. A standard carrier has individuals who pay in for decades with few claims. The government covers many elderly on fixed incomes and disabled. Their premiums are low as they pay out of Social Security. Most of these people would have nothing in the way of insurance if they had to pay standard carriers when most have preexisting conditions. That is why there is an insurance deficit. If they had the balance as the companies do this would not occur. You know insurance companies make money. If your government is collecting the premiums that standard carriers are collecting they like the companies would not have the deficit situation.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Again a snide comment on a serious of posts you didn't read or failed to understand. I answered a question. There are courses you could take that would help. I would suggest reading for understanding.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



It doesn't suck to be me at all. You don't seem to arguing for anything. If you call snide quips argument maybe you're winning but that's about it.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You finally found someone with answers that you can't debate. I'm surprised it took you so long to do that. I would have figured that would have happened with your first post.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...


Yes, it does suck to be you.

I can't even imagine what it must be like to be so envious of people who make more and purchase more than do I....Well, I can imagine it, but it makes me physically ill.

No wonder you're such a bitter sourpuss.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I read it and responded as best I could.  The article did not explain what occured in Germany. It just told us what is happening. There has to be a reason. The medical care contract must have been to low. Who knows. The article did not expound on that part of the issue. Socialist works for me provided you know what that is and not what McCain said.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I brought a set of stats that you have yet to do anything with except to say you don't agree. Seems like you have brought nothing to the table but applause for someone who has no knowledge and only makes silly comments.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Wow three cheers for you. Yours is fully funded how nice for you so fuck everyone else. Nice job. You have done well for yourself. You have no idea how well you would do. As far as the stats show your fully funded is 37th best in the world.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


So you don't trust the US government? Wow that is hard to believe. You sound like you would.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



It comes down to you're a socialist and we're not.  This country has a degree of socialism, but not the amount you want.  What you would like we don't like.  Couldn't get any simpler than that. I don't believe that a government run healthcare is good for 300 million and counting.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Tell me if you really think the insurance companies make a profit with the premiums they receive why the government would not do the same? They money is the same in premium total. You have me baffled with your circular bull on that one.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



people like me? moocher?

LOL dude, you dont have the first clue who I am, what I do for a living, the amount of hours I put in, nothing.

Wow you must think youre an amazing perfect person to think you can see my entire life through the electrons on the screen. Arrrogant much?

Dont be so quick to assume. You just look foolish.

Or you could just be a loser forum troll. If so I just fed you. Youre welcome.


PS it hilarious that you chose Donald Sutherland as your avatar. Have you read his blog on HuffPo? He's a screaming socialist and you chose him to represent you....hmmmmm....freudian?


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Again you type and nothing worth reading comes out. Thanks for playing with the few cards you seem to have.


----------



## Meister (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



Because the government hasn't done well at running a business.  The government was never set up to run a business.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



I'm not a bitter sourpuss at all. I don't worry about money I have plenty but don't need to think about it. You would do well to use all your focus on the topic, well maybe you wouldn't be able to get a grasp on it even if you focused.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

Katiegrrl0 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Katiegrrl0 said:
> ...



*Tell me if you really think the insurance companies make a profit with the premiums they receive why the government would not do the same?*

OMG! That's funny! What can the government do better than the private sector?

The only thing I can think of is government wastes money better than the private sector.


----------



## Katiegrrl0 (Mar 23, 2012)

Meister said:


> Katiegrrl0 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


In fact the US  government could not run it as it stands. It would have to really add more function to the base it already has. They have never done this one the massive scale. It would take time. Even now they manipulate the prices downward through negotiations. This would be a far bigger bite of the apple than they are doing now.
I really do think the insurance carriers need to remain in force for a time as the government builds to full coverage. If the full health care package as in the European nations which have done it for years would have come to be the US would have been swamped.
I don't think the US should be ranked 37th. They should be first as there is the ingenuity and drive to make that happen. Costs need to go down. The cost is to high and the lower income people and those out of work have no way to afford health care. 
The US can tackle this and straighten out the problem if left and right can work together as one body instead of competition. 
It's a serious problem and will only get worse over time.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Tell me if you really think the insurance companies make a profit with the premiums they receive why the government would not do the same?*
> 
> OMG! That's funny! What can the government do better than the private sector?
> 
> The only thing I can think of is government wastes money better than the private sector.


That means you were not thinking of these things:

Workers Comp Scandals in other States
^Privatization of workers comp in California results in workers comp costs increasing to above 166% of the national median. 

BBC News - Ken Clarke privatises Birmingham Prison amid union fury
^In UK privatized prisons cost 5% more even though private prisons don't provide workers with adequate benefits or pay.

Privatization During an Economic Downturn: Still Inefficient and Problematic | Progressive States Network
^Privatization of parking and parking meters resulted in an increase in costs by 240%

You&#8217;re in good hands with Social Security: But Privatization Proposals Would Unravel Its Ability to Insure Against Loss of Income, Disability, and Death | Economic Policy Institute
^SS keeps 39% of the elderly out of poverty
^SS returns are 26% higher than private alternatives

Charity Navigator - America's Largest Charity Evaluator | Home
Disagreeing With Dignan: The Politics Of Poverty And Welfare | Alas, a Blog
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/dont-donate-money-to-charity.html
^---Government welfare is around 3 times more efficient than private charity.
^Average charity has administration costs of 30% compared to 5% for government
^Americans spend around 300 billion a year on charity.  If government were to become the only "charity" than Americas would save around 75 billion dollars a year.

Rights At Risk With Binding Mandatory Arbitration 9/28/07 | abc7news.com
Testimony
------------^In 1980s conservative supreme court rewrote federal law allowing special interest to do forced arbitrations.
Making it so consumers and the industry could only go to trial in privatized systems run by special interests.
^Examples of privatized court systems and forced arbitration:
---Special interests industries win over 95% of cases
---In one case a women was forced to pay 8,000 because someone else had the same name as her and owed the company money.
---One judge who ruled in favor of consumers once was immediacy removed from his judge position.
Public Citizen | Press Room - Arbitration More Expensive Than Court
^arbitration has 700% more administrative spending
^arbitrations also don't provide justice but instead corporate lawlessness
^arbitrations also charge fees that justice offers for free that equals 700%+  of admin costs
Public Citizen | Congress Watch | Congress Watch - PC rebuttal to industry's misleading statment on BMA report
^Arbitrations favor corporations by more than 25%
^In total the government justice department saves 50 billion a year.
^
Conservative Arbitration which granted corporations to become their own courts has allowed corporations to become above the law. Companies are immune from accountability if their actions result in the death or injury of a person. Any judge that handed down a verdict in favor of consumers was removed. People required to pay companies money that other people owed.
Court Deals Important Blow To Corporate Immunity | ThinkProgress
How Minnesota's AG Saved Consumers From the Credit Card Industry | ThinkProgress

http://www.genevaassociation.org/pdf/News/2011GlobalInsuranceIndustryFactsheet.pdf
http://www.bls.gov/opub/focus/volume2_number12/cex_2_12.pdf
The Real Costs of Car Ownership Calculator
^Socializing life insurance alone would save America 250billion yearly
^Socializing car insurance/home/and all others minus health care would save 200 billion
^Socializing all insurance minus health care would save almost 500billion dollars yearly


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



First, You keep throwing out these words like socialism and bolshevik, you obviously either don't know what they mean or don't understand the contents of the ACA. The ACA does not have a public option. Therefore, it drives NO ONE out of the market.

Second, my post was not defending the ACA. If you read it again, I was simply explaining how it's meant to work.

However, I can see that my refusal to use stupid asinine rhetorical buzzwords , like Obamacare,  could be construed as support for the ACA.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 23, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Tell me if you really think the insurance companies make a profit with the premiums they receive why the government would not do the same?*
> ...



In 1996, Governor Wilson proposed completely  privatizing the State Fund. Thankfully, both labor and business leaders denounced privatization, and the governor abandoned this proposal. In 2003, as a result of the severe under-pricing since 1995 spurred by open rating, 28 private carriers either suffered insolvency or stopped writing workers compensation policies in California. *The State Fund took over the obligations of these bankrupt insurers costing California Tax payers, employers and workers billions of dollars.* 



Currently California Workers Compensation Insurance rates are 166% greater than the national median. California rates are currently the highest in the nationall due to the deregulation scam and the excessive greed of private for-profit workers compensation insurance agencies. 

So the state now runs the system and rates are 166% greater than the national median and that's the fault of the private sector? LOL!

Maybe I'll laugh at the rest of your sources later.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> And thats what we are getting with the Affordable Care Act. The government isnt running the health care industry with it, its simply setting standards by which more people get covered, the mandate with the 80-85% payout _should_ drive premium costs down ( but the jury is still out on that one. There have been right wing anf left wing economists who have gone both ways on it. meaning some left wingers say it wont and some right wingers say it will. At least we know theyre being honest instead of partisan even if they cant give us a definitive answer ).
> 
> Eventually though, if we set a goal to cover everyone, as Eisenhower wanted and Nixon proposed, the we will most likely have to expand medicare.



We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less. Competition is about the freedom  of customers to decide for themselves how to pay for their health care. "Setting standards" by definition limits that freedom. It stifles innovation and makes criminals out of people who refuse to do as ordered and buy overpriced insurance from the dominant insurance cartel.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > And thats what we are getting with the Affordable Care Act. The government isnt running the health care industry with it, its simply setting standards by which more people get covered, the mandate with the 80-85% payout _should_ drive premium costs down ( but the jury is still out on that one. There have been right wing anf left wing economists who have gone both ways on it. meaning some left wingers say it wont and some right wingers say it will. At least we know theyre being honest instead of partisan even if they cant give us a definitive answer ).
> ...



You are semi-correct, but I wasnt speaking about competition. I was refering to a partial government not a total government solution.

Setting standards doesnt limit competition, it forces the players to compete within the rules. Rules, provided they are applied equally to all players,  decide how the game is played, not who wins.

ETA: People who dont follow the law are criminals. Period. Doesnt matter if you like the law or not. Illegal aliens dont like our immigration laws and they are criminals and need to be caught and deported. laws dont make people criminals, breaking the laws make people criminals.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Setting standards doesnt limit competition, it forces the players to compete within the rules. Rules, provided they are applied equally to all players,  decide how the game is played, not who wins.



Of course setting standards limits competition. That's the whole point, to prevent providers from offering (and customers from purchasing) products and services outside the 'standard'. This benefits the vested, dominant interests in a given industry - protecting their turf and preventing alternatives - but for the rest of us it merely limits our options. With PPACA, the situation is even worse because the status quo (corporate, group health insurance) is a proven failure. Rather than letting us ditch it and find a better way, the powers that be are teaming with the industry to keep us herded into their pens. 

Democrats should be flat out ashamed for supporting this shit on the lame hope that it might, "some day", turn into their preferred 'public option'. Wake up. You're being played as unwitting corporatist shills.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.



Of course we are. We're getting a larger number of sellers in a given market. We're getting standardized quality and price indicators and actuarial numbers that allow sellers to send meaningful, readily understandable indicators to shoppers looking for plans. We're getting a level playing field that allows shoppers to choose the plan they like instead of being denied plan options by industry risk-shedding mechanisms. We're getting consumer-friendly IT interfaces that allow very easy, real-time side-by-side comparisons between plan offerings of different carriers in the market.

The health insurance market is on the verge of acting like a competitive market in a way it never has before.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 23, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> ^Socializing life insurance alone would save America 250billion yearly
> ^Socializing car insurance/home/and all others minus health care would save 200 billion
> ^Socializing all insurance minus health care would save almost 500billion dollars yearly


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.
> ...



Thats not until 2014, when the marketplace is scheduled to go live, and even then, to the best of my knoweldge, it doesnt end the mini monopolies that health insurance providers have within a state, correct?


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > We're not getting more competition with PPACA, we're getting less.
> ...



All selling the same _standardized_ products at the same _standardized_ rates. That's not competition - it's a fixed game, no matter how many players there are. 

What we need, more than anything are non-standard solutions. We need companies trying radically different approaches. We, as health care consumers, need the freedom to decide for ourselves how best to pay finance our health care - not have the decision made for us by regulatory boards (with health care industry lobbyists whispering in their ears).


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Actually, no.

My wife works in the health insurance field and the standardized policies are the required ones. Her company is adding more packages that offer more than the required sets in order to increase their profits. These "optional" plans would satisfy the ACA laws and at the same time be allowed to pay out less than the 80-85%, thus increasing their profit potential for the company.

These "optional" plans would obviously cost more than the standardized minimum coverage plans, but therein lies the freedom of choice. You choose with your wallet.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Thats not until 2014, when the marketplace is scheduled to go live, and even then, to the best of my knoweldge, it doesnt end the mini monopolies that health insurance providers have within a state, correct?



The exchanges need to be open for enrollment by the fall of next year. Given the incompetence of many state legislators, that means a fair number of states are going to start out with federally facilitated exchanges, or at best state-federal partnership exchanges (which is really just a slightly more state-friendly federally facilitated exchange). And it's still an open question as to what that looks like. Presumably some of those states will start making the effort to assume control of their exchanges after June of this year.

But yes, what I'm describing is officially in place as of January 1, 2014.



dblack said:


> All selling the same _standardized_ products at the same _standardized_ rates. That's not competition - it's a fixed game, no matter how many players there are.



No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.



> What we need, more than anything are non-standard solutions. We need companies trying radically different approaches.



Work a few "fundamentally"s in there and you're at half-Gingrich.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

Thanks for the clarification Greenbeard. I thought thats what you meant.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.



They are all subject to the same standard minimum coverage requirements and all contained withing the same rate limitations. You're equivocating and evading the point. *Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.* To pretend otherwise is deliberate deceit.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> *Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.*



Wait, cut-rate insurance coverage is the brilliant innovation you're searching for? Please fucking tell me that's not the "non-standard solution"  and "radically different approach" you're trumpeting.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > No, they don't sell the same products and, no, they don't charge the same rates for their products.
> ...




Have minimum standards in food products limited choice? Go to any grocery store and see how many choices you have.

Have minimum standards limited the choice of cars we can purchase? How many different makes and models are there?

Minimum standards do not decrease choice, they increase the quality of the product offered.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > *Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.*
> ...



I'm looking for anything that works. We're not going to find out what that is if we dictate solutions and commit everyone to the same standards.


----------



## dblack (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



*Standards limit the freedom of both consumers and providers to explore options.* The presumption that you (or regulators, or the majority) can, should, or even have the right to, decide for the rest of us what constitutes a higher 'quality' product is deeply offensive to the basic idea of freedom.

Seriously, where do you get off deciding for other people what is right for them, whether it comes to food, cars or health care? Why can't you just mind your own business? You wanna stick to "standards"? Go for it! But don't take it up as a mission to force the rest of us to follow your idea of what those standards should be.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Translation: this dumbfuck doesn't know what's going on, and will stall endlessly rather than do his own homework.  Well, since I'm prone to humiliate right wing blowhards like Todd, I'll break tradition.  Here's proof of the Greece/Goldman Sachs link

Goldman Secret Greece Loan Shows Two Sinners as Client Unravels - Bloomberg

Greek Debt Crisis: How Goldman Sachs Helped Greece to Mask its True Debt - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/business/global/14debt.html?pagewanted=all

And as to the subprime mortgage fiasco in relation to the EU:

Four Parallels Between Europe's Debt, Sub-Prime Mortgage Crises - Forbes

Part 5-II: Why Did the Credit Crisis Spread to Global Markets? | University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

And now that I've dispensed with this little detour, let us all not forget that neocons/teabaggers/libertarians STILL cannot fault the Obama Healthcare Reform beyond speculation and denial of the previous reality of our healthcare industry....just ask Dr. Peelo and Wendall Potter.

But suspect that Todd will somehow just avoid acknowledging any facts that disprove his arsenal of talking points, and just parrot squawk his usual drivel and dodges.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 23, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



My point was that with Goldman Sachs chicanery, Greece got into the EU when it shouldn't have....I never said that they were the direct cause of all of Greece's problems.

And my statement regarding the mortgage scandal and the EU stands:

Part 5-II: Why Did the Credit Crisis Spread to Global Markets? | University of Iowa Center for International Finance and Development

Todd just doesn't read carefully.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Go read Uptons Sinclairs The Jungle and get back to me with that.

Historically, setting minimum standards has not limited competition or consumer choice. No matter how many times you post it...and bold it...it doesnt make it true.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I didnt say you did say it. I was answering Todd and showing that while Goldman wasnt the cause, they did help it along and profit from it.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Historically, setting minimum standards has not limited competition or consumer choice. No matter how many times you post it...and bold it...it doesnt make it true.



Of course it has. There's no way to avoid the logic. The whole point of standards is to limit non-standard options - to make them illegal. Is that really so difficult to recognize? What you're trying to say is that it's a limitation that's worth it because it limits our options to things that you think are better. But again I ask, what right do you have to force your idea of better on others?


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Historically, setting minimum standards has not limited competition or consumer choice. No matter how many times you post it...and bold it...it doesnt make it true.
> ...





No the point of standards is to increase quality. It says you must provide these features in your produce at the bare minimum.

Like seat belts

or keeping a resturaunt rat and bug free

and what gives me the right?

I have the right because if you DONT have insurance my taxmoney must pay for your health care. Therefore, I have every right to demand *you pay your way*. I also have the right to demand that health coverage carries the bare minimum of coverage to prevent me paying for you yet again.

If you want to use my money for your health care, then Ive BOUGHT the right.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Vidi said:


> If you want to use my money for your health care, then Ive BOUGHT the right.



Well, I've never said I want to use your money for anything. So mind your own business. Deal?

This is why libertarians are so wary of the welfare state - it's invariably seen by meddlesome people as giving them (buying them) the right to bully other people.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to use my money for your health care, then Ive BOUGHT the right.
> ...



No no you said that you should have a choice in what you buy...ok Im fine with that. But if you dont buy ENOUGH coverage, then I and the rest of us end up paying your way.

What gives you the right to reach into my wallet and take food off of my table? 

If youre taking money from my family to provide your health coverage, then whos the real bully? the one stealing or the one demanding you stop?


Sidebar: I love firefly...Im assuming your browncoat title means you do too.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 24, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Typical Todd...he doesn't know shit from shinola except what talking points he can skim from Fox News and similar pundits, so he just makes desperate general attacks.

I've already done your homework once on this thread, Todd....get off your lazy, bias ass and look into the "Reagan Revolution" and how he pulled he teeth on federal oversight regarding health care insurance companies.

And whill you're at it, try to logically and factually prove everything else I stated in my response to Rabbi...or continue to blow smoke as usual.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 24, 2012)

Meister said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


I'd think conservatives would love putting limits on expenses.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



As I said in my late edit, this is exactly why the welfare state is unwelcome 'generosity' - I haven't ask for it, and don't want it - primarily because of the strings that are _always_ attached. All of the problems you're citing, presuming that I'm going to rob from you, can be easily solved without enslaving us all to the insurance companies. I suspect that most of us opposed to forced insurance will gladly sign waivers from whatever 'reaching into your wallet' you're imagining.

Now, if you'll kindly quit reaching into _my wallet_ to finance all these big government regulation schemes, we might have found some agreement. I suspect it's still a deal you wont want to agree to.



> Sidebar: I love firefly...Im assuming your browncoat title means you do too.



Best show ever on television, or could have been at the very least. Still holding out hope for more.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yeah like were just going to let you die after a car accident because you signed a waiver?

How would we even tracked that? An anti med-alert bracelet? Tag you with an implanted chip?

I think there might be some opposition to that...just saying



Sidebar:

I read on Blastr a few weeks ago that Joss is actually up for some sort of reunion...possible a mini series or another movie. 


anyway, Ive got to drive home now. have to be back at work in 5 hours. fun chatting with you. I enjoy a good argument that doesnt devolve into silly insults.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...


_*OH....THE....IRONY!!!!!*_


----------



## Oddball (Mar 24, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...


Telling me how much is or isn't "enough" coverage is dictating to me what to buy, comrade.

Oh, and BTW, my not carrying insurance doesn't automatically make me a deadbeat who won't pay his bills.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Translation: this dumbfuck doesn't know what's going on, but enough about you.

"Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts."

Goldman helping Greece hide their debt doen't make their debt bigger.
Borrowing more makes their debt bigger.

"but with a little help from Goldman Sachs, they got in....which essentially made them a grave risk to the EU market"

Yeah, Greece is a threat to the EU. The EU should have never allowed them to join. Stupid EU.

The bankrupt Greek government wasn't buying American mortgage securities with the money they didn't have.
Let me know if there's anything else I can clear up for you.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'll tell you what I used to tell my employees, when your problems become my problems You may not like how I solve my problems.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 24, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Are you able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through cancer treatment?


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Are you able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through cancer treatment?



I'm not asking you, or government, to pay - so it's a moot point.


----------



## Political Junky (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Are you able to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to go through cancer treatment?
> ...


So, it's let you die?


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



You can do whatever you like. I don't plan on letting that happen, but if it does, it's your call. I certainly wouldn't want to hold a gun to your head - which is essentially what such mandates are all about.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



China and Cuba are Communist Countries not socialists ones. Please cite a credible source to back up regarding your statements. Most people provide a link to their source.

Doctors warned parents about the possible long term effects of Ritalin. You are living proof that they were right.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 24, 2012)

The T said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



link.....


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Pretty brave to say when youre healthy. I doubt youd be as brave when youre sick.


----------



## dblack (Mar 24, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Pretty brave to say when youre healthy. I doubt youd be as brave when youre sick.



That has no bearing on the argument.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 24, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty brave to say when youre healthy. I doubt youd be as brave when youre sick.
> ...



I disagree.

Everyone talks a big game when their illness is hypothetical. But if it becomes real everything changes. 

Even Ron Pauls former campaign manager felt the sting of no insurance. 

-----full disclosure: while every article I see says he died BECAUSE he didnt have health insurance, I have yet to see PROOF as to how his lack of insurance was the cause of his death...so Personally, Im not buying that as the cause of his death. I see that as bullshit rhetoric. I am only pointing you to this article because other people had to step up and pay his bills or his widow would be destitute. 


Dead at 49 because he couldn't afford insurance: Terrible fate of Ron Paul aide emerges hours after Republican said state shouldn't provide free health care

Ron Pauls campaign chairman died with no

Ron Paul's Ex-Campaign Manager's Death Backdrop For Health Insurance Position 


to the best of my knowledge, the bill was never fully paid ( but I could be wrong on that one )


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



This treads very close to personal insult territory, so it's a little hard take. It's also utter bullshit. But I'll ignore your insinuations and point out that the story of Ron Paul's campaign manager is actually a perfect case in point. He didn't rob you. He didn't ask you for a fucking thing. His family and friends pitched in to pay his bills voluntarily.

Reading this article (again) honestly makes me physically ill, and show the depths to which statists will stoop to advance their ugly agenda. It's the one of the worst examples of political propaganda I've read in years, opportunistically seizing on a personal tragedy to score political points - points based on sheer fabrications. Your willingness to pass it along is disappointing.

First of all, Kent Snyder didn't die because he didn't have insurance. He died due to unexpected complications from pneumonia. Unfortunately things like that happen. It will happen to all of us eventually, no matter how much insurance we have. It will happen to you. It will happen to me. Contrary to the lies of opportunistic journalists, he received full medical attention - including last minute efforts to save him - and there is no indication that he avoided care because he couldn't afford it. Lastly, his bills were paid in full by family and friends.

All this disgusting political attack has done is highlight how community compassion _should_ be expressed - voluntarily and when necessary. Not pre-emptively at the point of a gun, which is what the welfare statists advocate. So how about you stow your petty stinginess and quit accusing me, and anyone advocating for freedom, of wanting to dig into your wallet. If I'm ever in need, I won't ask selfish assholes like you for a fucking thing.

Fortunately, most people aren't of your mindset. I, and most of my friends, are happy to help out people in need. And we're not interested in using the personal tragedy of others to promote political agendas designed to enrich corporate interests at the public's expense.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 25, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Appeals to emotion are also irrelevant to anything.


----------



## drippinhun (Mar 25, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > If socialist countries have a more copacetic form of healthcare....what's keeping you here?
> ...


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> All this disgusting political attack has done is highlight how community compassion _should_ be expressed - voluntarily and when necessary. Not pre-emptively at the point of a gun, which is what the welfare statists advocate.



You've advocated "innovative" cut-rate insurance, you're undoubtedly fond of the underwriting rules that denied this man insurance coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and you seem to find a certain nobility in relegating families to begging for money on the internet when their breadwinner racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt. Throw as many roadblocks up to accessing care as possible and pat yourself on the back for controlling costs.

And you've got the nerve to talk about others' "ugly agendas"?


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> You've advocated "innovative" cut-rate insurance, you're undoubtedly fond of the underwriting rules that denied this man insurance coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition, and you seem to find a certain nobility in relegating families to begging for money on the internet when their breadwinner racks up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical debt. Throw as many roadblocks up to accessing care as possible and pat yourself on the back for controlling costs.
> 
> And you've got the nerve to talk about others' "ugly agendas"?



I don't advocate "cut-rate" anything, so stow the strawman. I advocate the freedom of all of us to decide for ourselves how to live our lives. You want to make that decision for others. 

Sorry, but I can't respect this sort of gravedancing. It's right up there with the Fred Phelps mob protesting the funerals of gay soldiers.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> I don't advocate "cut-rate" anything, so stow the strawman.



Bullshit. You've explicitly come out against minimum standards or consumer protections based on nothing more than a bankrupt political philosophy. You want to deregulate the industry and shift the balance of power away from the consumer and toward the insurer (inexplicably in the name of "freedom"), yet have the gall to bitch about evil plots to "enrich corporate interests at the public's expense. "

Maybe you don't realize this, but for many, many people this discussion isn't simply a delightful philosophical diversion on internet discussion boards. And ideological bumper sticker slogans aren't going to cut it when it comes to solving the problems we have.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't advocate "cut-rate" anything, so stow the strawman.
> ...



Gosh, deregeluating the industry and offering consumers real choices!  Oh Noes!  It's the end of the world.
Stick it, commie-boy.


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't advocate "cut-rate" anything, so stow the strawman.
> ...



Wrong on all counts. Being against minimum standards isn't the same thing as being for cut-rate. I'm against imposing 'standards' at all. I'm just as opposed to 'maximum' standards. PPACA, which you consistently defend, does exactly what you accuse me of proposing. It takes power away from the consumer and hands it directly the corporate insurance cartel. It revokes the most important power a consumer has - the power to say "no" to shitty, overpriced services. It replaces that with 'regulation' that a consumer has virtually no power to influence outside of casting a meaningless vote for an unscrupulous politician every few years.


----------



## Oddball (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't advocate "cut-rate" anything, so stow the strawman.
> ...


Neither are copy-n-pastes of e-mail bomb releases from OIRA.

After that, if you're looking to an army of completely unaccountable politicians and bureaucrats to solve all the problems of the world, you're an even dumber party man  lemming than I had thought....Which is saying something.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Is there anything dumber than a party-man lemming?
Greenbeard has proven himself the dunce of health care.  He can't wait to repeat the "Ryan's plan is the end of medicare" even though he's been shown numerous times this is simply untrue.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 25, 2012)

dblack said:


> PPACA, which you consistently defend, does exactly what you accuse me of proposing. It takes power away from the consumer and hands it directly the corporate insurance cartel. It revokes the most important power a consumer has - the power to say "no" to shitty, overpriced services.



We're, what, eight posts away from the story of a man who couldn't buy health insurance due to insurance companies saying no and it's already faded from your consciousness? I realize you consistently approach this issue with a laser-like focus on some hypothetical segment of the population that will never get sick--some riskless profile that can get custom-tailored insurance and has all leverage in any market transaction. Then I'm sure that interacting with the health sector seems equivalent to ordering a pizza.

But the rest of us live on planet earth. Your deregulated utopia will always empower the insurers and providers relative to the consumer. Make useless insurance designed for the lowest risk enrollees the industry standard and watch access to care erode. Take away EMTALA and you'll no longer get to tout the "full medical attention - including last minute efforts to save him" the uninsured man receives.

Returning to a market built on bad incentives isn't going to help anyone but the insurance companies that benefit from that structure.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 25, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> He can't wait to repeat the "Ryan's plan is the end of medicare" even though he's been shown numerous times this is simply untrue.



Ryan's plan last year _did_ end Medicare. Why do you think he had to put it back into his "new and improved" budget this year?  Because it was there all along? 

Turns out ending it outright wasn't particularly popular. Who knew?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > PPACA, which you consistently defend, does exactly what you accuse me of proposing. It takes power away from the consumer and hands it directly the corporate insurance cartel. It revokes the most important power a consumer has - the power to say "no" to shitty, overpriced services.
> ...


Tough fucking shit.

Contrary to your communistic belief, you do not have any right to make a third party pick up the tab for your expenses.

Oh, and nobody said anything about Utopia....If anyone is pimping that concept, it's know-it-all collectivist authoritarian dickweeds like you.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If you look at history it has been only those who turned out to be authoritarian dictators of the most ruthless variety who promised equality, fairness, justice, and 'Utopia' if the people would just put them into power.  Amin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, Chavez, etc. etc. etc.  Every single one of them, in one way or another, obtained power by promising the people some form of free stuff or that the government would do something for them.

The Founders gave us a government that did not assign us our rights, but that recognized and secured our right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness etc. The government would not give us anything but would ensure that nobody would be allowed to hinder our going after whatever we wanted to have nor would it limit what we would be able to acquire so long as we didn't violate somebody else's rights in the process.

That concept produced the most free, most industrious, most successful, most generous, most prosperous people the world had ever known.  Even the poor among us looked rich to the poor of other nations.  Nobody expected anybody to give them anything, but most hoped to have it by their own efforts and ambition.

Somewhere along the way we lost that unique vision and exceptionalism and now we have people thinking the world owes them health care.  And a whole lot of other stuff.  

And we all are poorer because of that.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 25, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > He can't wait to repeat the "Ryan's plan is the end of medicare" even though he's been shown numerous times this is simply untrue.
> ...


Really?  What was the new plan going to be called?
I guess Obama ended Medicare too since his plan changes the program.
Yeah, Ryan's plan was so unpopular he got Ron Wyden to sign on to it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 25, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Yeah, Ryan's plan was so unpopular he got Ron Wyden to sign on to it.



Wyden didn't sign onto that plan. He's the one who persuaded Ryan to bring Medicare back in this year's proposal. 

This year Ryan came out with this revamped plan in which the major difference and selling point from last time is that, unlike his earlier plan, Medicare is allowed to continue to exist under it. That, of course, is a tacit admission that everything said about his earlier Medicare Elimination Plan was indeed true. But that still doesn't seem to have sunken in with you.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



YOU FUCKING IDIOT!  YOU ALREADY 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSIVES OF EVERY UNINSURED PERSON WHO HITS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY ROOM OF A HOSPITAL!  I seem to recall you right wing retards wailing like stuck pigs about how all those uninsured, illegal aliens were causing local hospitals to fold because they were using the emergency room as their primary doctor....I guess you dopes figure those are the ONLY people doing so.  Think again.

This is why you right wing parrots are so damned pathetic....you're not even smart enough to keep a logical connection between your various dogmas.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And here's the entire response

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5008149-post425.html

As the chronology of the posts shows, I've already settled the hash of Todd, the Rabbi and Oddball.  But since none of them can logically or factually disprove or refute what I say, you have intellectually bankrupt bumpkins like Oddball doing what you see here....sticking out his tongue and stamping his widdle feet.  Pathetic, but not unexpected.  Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yeah, Todd....keep telling yourself that!


----------



## dblack (Mar 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> YOU FUCKING IDIOT!  YOU ALREADY 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSIVES OF EVERY UNINSURED PERSON WHO HITS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY ROOM OF A HOSPITAL!



First of all this simply isn't true. When the shouting dies down we see that most uninsured medical expenses _are_ paid - something like two-thirds in the study I read. Granted that does leave a significant portion who default or don't pay all their bills, but these aren't the people who will be buying insurance because of the mandate. These are the people too poor to buy insurance or people who are shut out of the insurance game due to pre-existing conditions. The question is, what should we do about those people? 

Let's go ahead and presume government should do something about it ('cause clearly government is there to solve all our problems). If that's the goal, we should take all the money the PPACA shovels into the coffers of the insurance industry and instead give it directly the the people currently shut out of insurance *to spend on medical care *(not for insurance). We could do a helluva job beefing up the safety net with all the money we're getting ready to flush down the toilet on the ACA. Then, for the rest of us, we can address the other urgent problem, runaway health care inflation, with real market reforms to bring prices down. The point is, they're two different problems that demand different solutions.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Man, you neocon parrots do love to shovel the steaming loads, don't cha?

As it stands under the pre-reform system, YOU AND I PAID FOR EVERY PERSON WHO HAD TO USE AN EMERGENCY ROOM BUT DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE OR THE MEANS TO FULLY PAY FOR IT....whether they were illegals or bonafide citizens.

All this wailing about paying a tax IF YOU DO NOT WANT MEDICAL INSURANCE actually affects a VERY TINY portion of the population.  I have yet to meet a young middle/working class family who can afford ALL THE MEDICAL COSTS of raising their kids (let alone taking care of themselves) based SOLELY on their salaries.

What all the ballyhoo is about is coming from the insurance lobbies, who do not like competition from the federal gov't or being kept from screwing over their clients like they traditionally have been (again, just ask Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter).....so they get their PR people to sell this "socialist gov't takeover" distortion of the Healthcare Reform bill to willfully ignorant mules like YOU FOXY...feeding on your prejudicial attitude towards Obama and/or democrats and liberals in general.  

Grow up, Foxy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Getting into the EU didn't screw Greece's economy.
Glad to clear up your confusion.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Read Posts #416 and 425, folks.

God help the synagog that his this imbecile as their "rabbi".


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



See folks, either Todd is just too fucking dumb or is just insipidly stubborn.  Note how he repeats his disproved distortion as to what I wrote....DESPITE my dumbing it down for his Todd(ler) like brain.  This is why the intellectual dishonest of folks like Todd will always be their undoing in a discussion were the audience can go back and follow the chronology to see precisely who said what.

I leave Todd to repeat his BS ad nauseum (complete with lies and dodges and insults)...hey, maybe Todd will just excerpt parts of my response for a "I know you are, but what am I" retort!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> snakedoc said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



*What screwed Greece's economy was having the likes of Goldman Sach's fudge the books for it's admittance into the EU....*

LOL!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 25, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > snakedoc said:
> ...



It's economy was ALREADY SHAKY to begin with, you chuckling chowderhead!  Having Goldman Sachs cook the books to be admitted to the EU put the nail in the coffin, because the EU banks got screwed win the housing mortgage toxic packages.   A matter of fact, a matter of history.  But you've already been schooled on this  http://www.usmessageboard.com/5008101-post416.html

This is the problem with dumbass neocon/teabagger/libertarian  parrots like YOU, Todd...YOU can only mentally handle headlines and talking points...COMPREHENSIVE THINKING with ALL information is obviously beyond your capabilities, Todd.  Goodnight and good luck, toddles.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> .YOU can only mentally handle headlines and talking points...COMPREHENSIVE THINKING with ALL information is obviously beyond your capabilities, Todd.  Goodnight and good luck, toddles.



Pot, meet kettle....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Greece was weakened by entering the EU?


----------



## Oddball (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > YOU FUCKING IDIOT!  YOU ALREADY 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSIVES OF EVERY UNINSURED PERSON WHO HITS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY ROOM OF A HOSPITAL!
> ...


But...But...But....That means everyone who doesn't carry insurance isn't an outright deadbeat, which totally puts the lie to the myth perpetrated and furthered by the medical Marxists.

We *just can't* have that!


----------



## LilOlLady (Mar 26, 2012)

I was listening to callers on CSpan this morning and those that oppose the affordable healthcare plan is not about mandate but all about Obama and 99% of the village idiots had no clue what the plan was about.
Healthcare would be cheaper when all pay in to it.You pay a premium far less than you would pay a private healthcare plan now and you would get more for your money and not less. there would be no panel in washington to say what you cannot or can get. I heard the most ignorant ranting ever and it sounded like Rush and Foxnews.
I am benefitting now and my medical care is not planned by anyone but me and my doctor. I fell in the donut hole last years and for three months my medication cost me nothing. This month after i had paid so much my meds are freel One of the callers was on mandated medicare. 
You pay less for your medical care and if you pay the fine you get nothing for your money.
If you go into er we all pay and we pay more.


----------



## Meister (Mar 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> I was listening to callers on CSpan this morning and those that oppose the affordable healthcare plan is not about mandate but all about Obama and 99% of the village idiots had no clue what the plan was about.
> Healthcare would be cheaper when all pay in to it.You pay a premium far less than you would pay a private healthcare plan now and you would get more for your money and not less. there would be no panel in washington to say what you cannot or can get. I heard the most ignorant ranting ever and it sounded like Rush and Foxnews.
> I am benefitting now and my medical care is not planned by anyone but me and my doctor. I fell in the donut hole last years and for three months my medication cost me nothing. This month after i had paid so much my meds are freel One of the callers was on mandated medicare.
> You pay less for your medical care and if you pay the fine you get nothing for your money.
> If you go into er we all pay and we pay more.



You have a perfect world scenario.....the government can't operate healthcare and never could in a perfect world.  This country won't be able to afford this in the long run....mark my words.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



True. And, interesting is that true conservatives are the ones who first started this conversion. Yep, its true that, once upon a time, GObP/Repubs believed people should be responsible for their own health care coverage. Even crazy Heritage was in favor of personal responsibility. 

But, since it was passed on President Obama's watch, they all want to be able to get free care at the emergency room and force libs to pay their bills.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> True. And, interesting is that true conservatives are the ones who first started this conversion. Yep, its true that, once upon a time, GObP/Repubs believed people should be responsible for their own health care coverage. Even crazy Heritage was in favor of personal responsibility.



Funny how conservatives and liberal politicians only seem to agree on policies that enrich their mutual benefactors. Why did liberals adopt a such boneheaded conservative plan?


----------



## Syphon (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > YOU FUCKING IDIOT!  YOU ALREADY 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSIVES OF EVERY UNINSURED PERSON WHO HITS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY ROOM OF A HOSPITAL!
> ...



It actually is true....

Health Coverage Costs Rise Due to Uninsured, U.S. Study Says - Bloomberg

Insured families in six states -- New Mexico, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Texas and Arkansas -- will pay more than $1,500 in additional premiums this year to cover the costs of patients who lack medical insurance, the report found. By 2010, the list will include five more states: Florida, Alaska, Idaho, Washington and Arizona.

These extra costs place unacceptable burdens on all families, as well as our small businesses and our medical providers,'' said Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, in a statement. Kansas families will pay an additional $729 in premiums to cover the costs of the uninsured, the report found.

The report is from 2005. So they have obviously known about this for quite a while..


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> I was listening to callers on CSpan this morning and those that oppose the affordable healthcare plan is not about mandate but all about Obama and 99% of the village idiots had no clue what the plan was about.
> Healthcare would be cheaper when all pay in to it.You pay a premium far less than you would pay a private healthcare plan now and you would get more for your money and not less. there would be no panel in washington to say what you cannot or can get. I heard the most ignorant ranting ever and it sounded like Rush and Foxnews.
> I am benefitting now and my medical care is not planned by anyone but me and my doctor. I fell in the donut hole last years and for three months my medication cost me nothing. This month after i had paid so much my meds are freel One of the callers was on mandated medicare.
> You pay less for your medical care and if you pay the fine you get nothing for your money.
> If you go into er we all pay and we pay more.



rw's here said I was lying when I said that some parts of the act are already in force. They had no idea that they could be saving money right now. They also didn't know they may be eligible to get money back from their insurance company.

The right wants to pay more and get less because they've been told a pack of lies. Further, they WANT to believe those lies because, just like the anybody but Obama" ignorance, if they learn how the Affordable Care Act benefits them, they would have to admit that limb-a-a-a, beck, faux are paid by the 1% to lie to the rest of us.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It was weak to begin with. Then it hid its debt, with the help of Goldman Sachs, incurring more debt in the process.

Many of the people on my side make the mistake that is was Goldman that "caused" the Greek crisis, it's blatantly untrue. The issue with Holdman is that while Greece was a client, they bet against them and profited from it, which means they weren't serving their clients best interests in the matter. Not sure insider trading would apply in that case either. 

But while we may see that as unethical, we don't know what went on behind closed doors and what warnings Goldman may have or not given to the Greek government.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > True. And, interesting is that true conservatives are the ones who first started this conversion. Yep, its true that, once upon a time, GObP/Repubs believed people should be responsible for their own health care coverage. Even crazy Heritage was in favor of personal responsibility.
> ...




For the same reason, liberals are now championing the originally Conservative idea of cap and trade, it's a good idea that can work.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Syphon said:


> It actually is true....



Nope. I was responding to taichiliberal's statement:



> YOU ALREADY 'PICK UP THE TAB' FOR THE MEDICAL EXPENSIVES OF EVERY UNINSURED PERSON WHO HITS THE LOCAL EMERGENCY ROOM OF A HOSPITAL!



Which is obviously untrue. Uninsured people are still billed, and most of them end up paying. As I said, many don't, and that's a problem - but the mandate doesn't target those people. It targets people who have a decent income but for whatever reason don't buy insurance, exactly the people most likely to pay their bills. What's more, they're paying prices that are radically inflated, in large part due to the people who _are_ playing the insurance game.

So this campaign to demonize people who are choosing not to have insurance, or choosing cheap 'catastrophic' only policies, is completely backassward. These people are doing exactly the right thing and looking for ways to save money by cutting out unnecessary middlemen (the insurance industry). They aren't driving health care inflation. If anything, it's our compulsive tendency to over-insure that's driving health care prices higher and higher.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


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



Or maybe it's because, when the pretense is peeled away, they're all corporatists with essentially the same goals.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The only commonly shared goal among most is their addiction (created by the ability) to use the people's money to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth.  Obama's healthcare reform package takes over 1/6th of the U.S. economy to address a very small fracition of chronically uninsured people.  And it gives unprecedented power to the federal government to control all our lives.

Cap and Trade is another program that will further tighten the chains around all our choices, options, opportunities, and freedoms.

For the life of me, I can't understand why this is not alarming to ALL freedom loving Americans.

But too many Americans are now addicted to the free stuff they get or hope for from the government.  And are willing to sell their very souls to get it.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



And yet, cap and trade worked when George HW Bush enacted it to deal with the emissions causing acid rain. 

It's a good, free market idea that lets private industry actually profit by trading emissions they are no longer using. 

And it's a true Conservative idea.

And please tell me where all this "free stuff" can be loaded into my van. If its as prevalent as you all claim, then I a fool working as many hours as I am, paying my bills and building my business.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> And please tell me where all this "free stuff" can be loaded into my van. If its as prevalent as you all claim, then I a fool working as many hours as I am, paying my bills and building my business.



Ahh.. but it's not for everyone. How would that be any fun?

It works best if you're 'too big to fail'. Or have access to well-organized lobbying campaigns. You should read up on corporatism. It's way cool!

Corporatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > And please tell me where all this "free stuff" can be loaded into my van. If its as prevalent as you all claim, then I a fool working as many hours as I am, paying my bills and building my business.
> ...




Well dblack, now you're sounding downright...liberal...gasp!

Yes, we switched over to a plutarchy somewhere in the last 30-40 years. Eisenhower warned us but we ignored the warning.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Depends on how you define it, I suppose. Just know that, in my view, the liberals in Congress are every bit the corporatists that Republicans are - arguably moreso when you consider stuff like PPACA.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



I'm surprised myself.  It seems as if the Republic has already become a nanny state.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




When both sides are advocating intrusive government, how could it not be?


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The Bush 43 administration's energy program was about as ghastly as it gets and was something only a radical flaming raging liberal could love.  I believe history will show that it was that, plus other not-at-all-conservative programs and initiatives pushed, that cost the GOP their majorities in both houses of Congress in 2006, what sent President Bush's approval ratings into the basement. and what started the first stirrings of what has become the Tea Party movement.    But that's another story.

Cap and trade is NOT a conservative concept and never was.  It is one of the worst examples of inappropriate government meddling, interference, and imposition of power enabling those in government to exercise the worst kinds of cronyism and thus further enhance their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...




You're incorrect, Fox.

The Political History of Cap and Trade


Cap and trade, then called emissions trading, was originally brought up to the White House by C Boyden Gray, who served as White House council to George HW Bush and was a member of the Federalist Society. 

You can't get anymore Conservative than that.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

> Book Holden authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population



John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> > Book Holden authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population
> 
> 
> 
> John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet



As soon as the legislation is proposed, I'll stand with you to storm the castle.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > > Book Holden authored in 1977 advocates for extreme totalitarian measures to control the population
> ...



No need to storm the castle. It's enough to see the intentions of those in the castle.  Then vote.

Democracy, remember?


----------



## Staidhup (Mar 26, 2012)

Interesting rant, one should research their systems very carefully prior to making preposterous statements. As for your question as to why they would not be clamoring to adopt our system can be summed up as follows, once you give a child a sucker try taking it back. Time once again to do some research about quality of care, timeliness, availability, and patient care. Socialized medicine is one step toward government mandated euthanasia, but heck they will pump you full of morphine to make the ride that much easier. If your young it's great, but if your retired or in your 50's it's another story, get in line and take a number and get the facts. Oh by the way have you ever researched mortality and survival rates in these wonderful countries? Apparently not.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> I'm surprised myself.  It seems as if the Republic has already become a nanny state.



I surprised so few people 'get' that we're being played by both parties. They're tag-teaming us right into the ground. Even here were people are supposedly paying attention to politics we waste so much time and energy playing the coke-pepsi, phony team sport bullshit that pretends that Republicans and Democrats aren't just two sides of the same coin.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised myself.  It seems as if the Republic has already become a nanny state.
> ...



Conspiracy Theories - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



I'm not saying there's any conspiracy. It's just the way it works out. They're both working for the same goals (more power) and driven toward the same policies for that reason. In addition, they have collaborated on creating a wide range of legal and process barrier preventing alternative parties from gaining any momentum.

Simply paying attention to who funds the major parties - and observing that the major donors are the same on both sides - gives indication how little difference there is between them.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



The fact that a horse sometimes acts like a jackass doesn't make the jackass a horse.  President George H.W. Bush's tax increase on the 'rich' wasn't a conservative concept either and cost him the 1992 election.

I don't judge concepts by how people identify themselves.  I judge concepts on the principles that define modern American conservatism and liberalism.  Cap and Trade, no matter how it is dressed up or who proposes it or who supports it, is not a conservative concept.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



All you are doing now is defining a very broad statement of party politics.  Both sides are lobbied because hedging the bets is a good Capitalist method. I know I hedge mine. 

Democrats and Republicans have far different political platforms.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



And enact far different policies? Seriously?


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Of course they put forward far different policies which is why majorities are mostly necessary and why the fight over a legislating judiciary.

Enacting policy is a horse of a different color.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Well, I simply don't see a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney, and I think it's fairly funny (in a mostly depressing way) that the people who so virulently want Obama out, are being offered up a virtual clone as his replacement.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If you're not seeing any difference, you aren't looking.  And I'm not a Romney fan.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



What do you see? If you _really_ expect Romney to make a serious effort at repealing ACA, well - that's pretty hard to take seriously.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

It's the HC individual mandate that is the proof of the political agenda (serious difference) and not the attempt to repeal the policy which is the reactive process.  That's the horse of a different color.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Why would I not take him as seriously as any other candidate running who says they will make a serious effort to repeal ACA?   Why is he less believable than anybody else?   At last he has a proven track record of being able to create consensus within widely diverse groups and bring people to a meeting of minds to get something done.   Does anybody else still running who has a chance to win have that good a track record?  Gingrich is the only one who has a similar track record but he was working with mostly like minded Republicans.  A President doesn't always have that luxury.

And mind you, I am not a Romney fan.  There are others I would have much preferred to get the nomination.   But to suggest that there is no difference in his perspective, approach, and world view than that of Barack Obama is ludicrous.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> It's the HC individual mandate that is the proof of the political agenda (serious difference) and not the attempt to repeal the policy which is the reactive process.  That's the horse of a different color.



I'm not clear. Are citing that as proof of the similarity of their agendas, or a difference?


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Why would I not take him as seriously as any other candidate running who says they will make a serious effort to repeal ACA?   Why is he less believable than anybody else?



Well, apart from his 'proven track record' of saying pretty much anything a given audience wants to hear, it's particularly hard to believe he has any principled objection to the ACA. He signed, and takes credit for, the law that the national program is modeled on.



> At last he has a proven track record of being able to create consensus within widely diverse groups and bring people to a meeting of minds to get something done.



So does Obama. This is one of the primary ways I see them as the same, and why I'm opposed to both of them. They aren't leaders. They're facilitators and corporatists. Despite their campaign rhetoric, neither of them govern by pursuing principled goals. They govern by cutting deals with all the 'vested interests' effected by a given policy, assigning special privileges, offering exemptions - even crafting law specifically as a reward for the cooperation of certain groups. This is the worst kind of lawmaking in my opinion, and each of their respective health care laws were replete with it.


----------



## Ropey (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > It's the HC individual mandate that is the proof of the political agenda *(serious difference*) and not the attempt to repeal the policy which is the reactive process.  That's the horse of a different color.
> ...



State vs Federal legislative differences.  The States have the right. The Federal Government does not.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 26, 2012)

Ropey said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Ropey said:
> ...



Exactly.  I would admire Romney more if he would admit that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not delivering exactly as promised, but he is as human as the next person and that would be a bigger admission and swallowing one's pride more than most of us would probably willingly do.  I can even forgive him for at one time believing in it so much he might have thought something similar could work at the federal level.  He almost certainly now knows better.

But a state program of any nature--and probably EVERY state has at least one that has not delivered according to its advertising or expectations--is a much different animal than is a federal program.  And while state entitlements are becoming a huge issue in state after state after state, a state program has nowhere the potential of becoming a national, revenue devouring, unsustainable national albatross such as Social Security has become, as Medicare has become, and which Obamacare will certainly become if it is not stopped.

So long as the GOP candidates understand that and recognize that and pledge responsible action on that, I'm good with it.  And all four still in the running do.

Obama, if he understands it at all, is not going to recognize that and/or do any responsible action on that.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Exactly.  I would admire Romney more if he would admit that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not delivering exactly as promised



I would admire him more if he recognized that it's a fundamental violation of individual rights, regardless of whether it's at the state or federal level.



> ... but he is as human as the next person and that would be a bigger admission and swallowing one's pride more than most of us would probably willingly do.  I can even forgive him for at one time believing in it so much he might have thought something similar could work at the federal level.  He almost certainly now knows better.
> 
> But a state program of any nature--and probably EVERY state has at least one that has not delivered according to its advertising or expectations--is a much different animal than is a federal program.  And while state entitlements are becoming a huge issue in state after state after state, a state program has nowhere the potential of becoming a national, revenue devouring, unsustainable national albatross such as Social Security has become, as Medicare has become, and which Obamacare will certainly become if it is not stopped.
> 
> ...



Well, no offense, but either you're leaning gullible, or I'm too cynical. If I thought Romney had a chance in hell of getting elected, I'd offer a wager on him pushing for repeal, because I'm pretty damned certain it wouldn't happen. He's in bed with the insurance industry every bit as much as Obama is.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Fair enough. I can accept that as a viable definition.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.  I would admire Romney more if he would admit that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not delivering exactly as promised
> ...



Dont listen to the far left hype. Romeny has as much a chance of getting elceted as Obama ( and Im supporting Obama ) But so does Gingrich and Santorum and even Paul. 

Once the nomination is decided the sides will fall into place and the few true independents out there will decide if they like gas prices or who ever looked better in a debate and decide the next president.

This election will be close.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



And pointless.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 26, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> Exactly.  I would admire Romney more if he would admit that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not delivering exactly as promised, but he is as human as the next person and that would be a bigger admission and swallowing one's pride more than most of us would probably willingly do.



Some observations from an analysis of the reforms published in _Health Affairs_ earlier this year:



> *In 2010 Massachusetts adults reported sustained gains in health care access and use relative to 2006* (Exhibit 2; additional measures can be found in Appendix Exhibit 2; simple [unadjusted] estimates are in Appendix Exhibit 6).9 For example, in 2010 compared to 2006, nonelderly adults were more likely to have a usual place to go when they were sick or needed advice about their health (up 4.7 percentage points), and were more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percentage points), a specialist visit (up 3.7 percentage points), multiple doctor visits (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2),9 and a dental care visit (up 5.0 percentage points; Appendix Exhibit 2).9





> In addition to examining health care use, it is important to consider barriers to obtaining needed care. *Nonelderly adults in Massachusetts were less likely to report that they did not get some of the types of care they needed in 2010, compared to 2006* (Appendix Exhibit 3; simple [unadjusted] estimates in Appendix Exhibit 7).9 The share of adults reporting that they did not get needed care was down for doctor care, medical tests, treatment or follow-up care, and preventive care over this five-year period.





> *The share of nonelderly adults who reported high levels of out-of-pocket health care spending (10 percent or more of family income) was lower in 2010 (6.1 percent) than in 2006 (9.8 percent)*. Consistent with the lower burden of out-of-pocket expenses, *the share of adults reporting unmet need for care because of cost was down in 2010 relative to 2006 for all of the types of care examined except prescription drugs and dental care* (Appendix Exhibit 4).9





> Health insurance coverage and improved access to care are interim goals of the 2006 reform initiative; the ultimate goal is improved health for the population in Massachusetts. The survey used for this study had a single question about health status: In general, would you say that your health is excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? Although self-reported health status has limitations, it is often used as a proxy for clinical measures of health when such measures are not available, as was the case here. *We found strong and sustained gains in the share of nonelderly adults in Massachusetts who reported their health as very good or excellent, with an increase from 59.7 percent in 2006 to 64.9 percent in 2010* (data not shown).7



Romney should be proud of his achievement.


----------



## dblack (Mar 26, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.  I would admire Romney more if he would admit that Romneycare in Massachusetts is not delivering exactly as promised, but he is as human as the next person and that would be a bigger admission and swallowing one's pride more than most of us would probably willingly do.
> ...



I'm sure he is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



The important difference is that acid rain caused quantifiable damage, CO2, not so much.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The important difference is that acid rain caused quantifiable damage, CO2, not so much.



Yep hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and droughts cause no damage


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Now THAT, sir, is a matter of opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > The important difference is that acid rain caused quantifiable damage, CO2, not so much.
> ...



Yeah, we didn't have those before we used fossil fuels.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 26, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Please quantify the damage.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, one in particular "damage" may actually work out to Americas advantage.

The Glacial on the Tibetan plateu is near gone. It feeds the Yellow and Yangtse rivers. The Yellow and Yangtse rivers provide irrigation for the majority of the rice production in China. When the glacier is gone, the rivers will dry up.

China has been working diligently to pioneer dry rice production, but the yields have not been promising, only about 20-30% of normal yield.

How this could be good for us is within 20 years the Chinese are going to be desperate for grains. We simply tell the farmers we currently pay not to grow, to grow wheat and ship it to China to pay our debt 25 cents on the dollar.

Like I said, its a matter of opinion if Global Climate Change is caused by C02 emissions. Theres data that supports both sides. 

It comes down to the individual as to whos data you believe.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 27, 2012)

Syphon said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



The price a country pays for Health Care per person is not as important as their ability to pay that price, dimwit. Some countries are wealthier than others based on their GNP. Think about that relevance.

Ok Brainless: Below is the updated information that you failed find.

France:     2007-3679 2008-3809 2009-3978 Total Increase = 299
Germany:          3724         3963        4218                      494
UK:                 3051         3281        3487                      436

OECD iLibrary: Statistics / Health: Key Tables from OECD / Total expenditure on health per capita 2011

France's Government is based on the French Constitution of the fifth Republic, UK is a Constitutional Monarchy and Common Wealth Realm, Germany is a Federal Republic and the USA is a Constitutional Republic Governed By The Rule OF LAW.
A Democracy is a different type of Government that is not interchangeable with any of the governments listed above. You need to find out about that information.

You should sue the schools or any Institution of Higher Learning ( if you got that far ) you attended for failing to educate you.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > .YOU can only mentally handle headlines and talking points...COMPREHENSIVE THINKING with ALL information is obviously beyond your capabilities, Todd.  Goodnight and good luck, toddles.
> ...



the chronology of the posts shows that I already kicked this dopey assed "Rabbi" to the curb when he couldn't refute the FACTS I initially responded to him with.  Now all he's got is childish retorts with accompanying lies and regurgitation.  pathetic.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 27, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



You've never presented a fact in all your worthless time here.  Why do you think you started now?


----------



## starcraftzzz (Mar 27, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> You've never presented a fact in all your worthless time here.  Why do you think you started now?



Well that is you think that reality is not a fact but worhtless


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 27, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As the chronology of the posts shows, folks, Todd doesn't have the stones or the brains to debate an issue once he's presented with information that disproves his beliefs.  Note how Todd leaves out parts of sentences and paragraphs that don't jibe with his agenda....a pretty lame tactic on Todd's part when all the reader has to do is click back to the original post and see Todd's dishonest attempt to misrepresent the conclusion of a response.

Pretty lame on your part, Todd.  But I expect nothing less from you.  You may repeat your toddler BS.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 27, 2012)

Oddball said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




dblack is as big a chucklehead as you are, my Odd little man...he likes to treat his personal supposition and conjecture as fact, along with his conservative myopic view of an issue...this is why I have him on IA.

But I have hopes even for willfully ignorand dullards like YOU, Oddball.  Here's a little history lesson that should counter-act the right wing bilge dblack just fed you:

Number of uninsured Americans hits record high - Health - Health care - msnbc.com

Number of uninsured climbs to highest figure since passage of Medicare, Medicaid | Physicians for a National Health Program

How Does Growth in Health Care Costs Affect the American Family? | RAND


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 27, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




If you backtrack the posts, you'll note that Todd edits out the rest of my response.

Again and again, I never stated that Goldman Sachs was solely responsible for Greece's problems.  I've stated time and again that Goldman's book cooking got Greece into the EU WHEN IT SHOULDN'T HAVE DUE TO IT'S ALREADY WEAK ECONOMY.  Getting into the EU was the icing on the cake, and when the mortgage toxicity hit the EU banks, Greece (the weakest link) went down for the count.

Follow the chronology of the posts and you'll see the intellectual dishonesty of Todd and his buddies.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 28, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > You've never presented a fact in all your worthless time here.  Why do you think you started now?
> ...



The chronology of the posts shows the "rabbi" to be a rabid liar...but that's all intellectually bankrupt neocon cretins have....constant repetition of their failed ideology and then denying/lying about any facts to the contrary.  I pity the synagog that has this dope as their "rabbi".

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5015743-post464.html


----------



## Vidi (Mar 28, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > usmcstinger said:
> ...



Using your own link, the total increase in cost in the US from 2007 to 2009 is nearly $900. 

What point are you trying to make?

A little clarification please


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



If you won't prove your claim, you should run away again.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



*Getting into the EU was the icing on the cake, *

Icing on what cake? Spell it out.

*and when the mortgage toxicity hit the EU banks, Greece (the weakest link) went down for the count.*

If the EU banks weren't weakened, Greece wouldn't have a crisis?
Another interesting claim with no proof.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...




I think he's saying that hiding their debt with the help of Goldman was icing on the cake, but I also think he means straw that broke the camels back.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Hiding your debt doesn't make your debt bigger.
Thanks for trying to help him, he needs it.


----------



## Vidi (Mar 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Actually, I think the way this deal was structured it did. But thats not saying that the deal was what broke Greece, in fact, it's impact on Greeces overall economic stability was minimal...If anything, entrance into the EU should have given it more stability.

My issue with Goldman Sachs in this matter is that, after getting access to Greeces books, they bet against Greece and profited from it. I do not know if that would be considered insider trading, but it sure ain't cool.

ETA: that and the fact that helping Greece commit fraud on the EU essentially makes them accessories to that fraud.


----------



## usmcstinger (Mar 28, 2012)

Vidi said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


----------



## Vidi (Mar 28, 2012)

Both of us? Hmmm were you and I responding to each other, prior to that? If we were I missed it during the other back and firths in the thread.

I'm serious though. I respect the fact that you brought data to the table to back yourself up. But what was the point you were trying to make?


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Vidi said:
> ...



Only Todd would be stupid enough to say, "if there wasn't a problem in the first place, then there wouldn't be a crisis."

No shit sherlock!  But alas, it is a matter of fact and history that Greece was in financial troubles prior to it's application to the EU.  Goldman Sachs cooked the books, and Greece got it....then the US toxic housing market package got into the international financial market, the EU banks got screwed, and those who were already in trouble got the brunt of it (i.e., GREECE).

As the chronology of the posts shows, I've documented this several times...but Todd REFUSES to acknowledge reality, and with the insipid stubborness of the willfully ignorant, Todd will just dig himself deeper into the hole of stupidity.  Carry on.


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's easier to project failure on to others.  Tooshieliberal doesnt know what he doesn't know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Excellent! Greece was in trouble before.
Getting into the EU benefitted Greece.
Greece is not bankrupt because of Goldman.
Greece is not bankrupt because of the EU.
Greece is not bankrupt because of the financial crisis.
Greece is bankrupt because too many Greeks get too many benefits and too few Greeks pay into the system. 
Obama is trying to put us on the same path. Hopefully he will fail.
Carry on.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 29, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???



between Medicare Medicaid Schip VA and state insurance regulation we have socialist health care. The solution is to introduce Republican capitalism so our health care industry becomes the best in the world.

A liberal will lack the IQ to know what capitalism is so can't comment on this subject. Sorry.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 29, 2012)

Vidi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Todd knows this, he's just being a typical defeated neocon/teabagger parrot....no matter what the reality or facts, Todd will grasp any straw and apply his usual intellectual myopia and then just repeat his crap ad nauseum.  Insipid stubborness based on willful ignorance is the Toddler's forte, it would seem.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




When it comes to making a fool of right wing parrots like you, Toddles, I always do!


----------



## The Rabbi (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes, declare victory even in the face of obvious humiliation.  You are a tool and a half.


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



For who exactly?  It already is the best in the world for the wealthy.  So in your world view those who have not managed to avoid the pitfalls of predatory capitalism but played by all of the rules accepted by CONSUMERSshould just be greatfull having been allowed to play the game and take their chances.  Perhaps lost a good paying job due to outsourcing... they should praise the rich for their good fortune and ability to game the system and just die quietly knowing that they have done their part to maintain all advantage to the rich including access to the best health care in the world.  

There is a not so small part of me that wishes people like you succeed.  We need greater division of wealth and access in our country.  We need to drive a greater percentage of the population into desperation.  

I see where this will be heading.  If forced to...regular people will have to result to a "black market" of health care.  Rich kids will be abducted ..not for ransome... but for their body parts ..sold to the highest bidders on an open market like drugs.  Speaking of which..there will be mass hyjacking of overly priced life saving drugs in transport.  If you need such miracle chemicals people will only have to call their drug dealer.

Yup nothing screams pure capitalism like a black market..free from rules and regulations...the strongest and smartest survive..  Buyer beware..  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgE-Oedaiyk]Eagles - Life In The Fast Lane - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 30, 2012)

Oh for heaven's sake people, just read up on the European economic woes, including Greece, and you will see that Goldman Sachs was not the catalyst or reason for any of it.  Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and their employees, however, were among Barack Obama's biggest donors and have been among his most staunch supporters including some of their people being assigned to Obama's advisory groups.  Which would help explain their support for Obamacare among other things.  And of course they both got a lot of Obama money.

As for the woes in Greece and elsewhere in Europe, for those who continue to post nonsense about that, here is a quick primer to begin educating yourselves about that:

BBC News - What really caused the eurozone crisis?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 30, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> Yup nothing screams pure capitalism like a black market..free from rules and regulations...



but neither libertarians nor Republicans want capitalism without rules. That would be anarchy, not capitalism. You seem very confused?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Obama is trying to put us on the same path. Hopefully he will fail.
> Carry on.



This is true. BO's budgets going forward show no sense of fiscal responsibility whatsoever. BO is Greek socialist at heart. His real interest is in buying votes with promises of more and more welfare of all kinds. What did we expect? He had two communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders and lied about it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 30, 2012)

Greece is bankrupt because too many Greeks get too many benefits and too few Greeks pay into the system. 

*Is this your personal assessment or something you got off of right wing media/punditry. Either way you should be able to provide documentation to support your assertions....just like I did. If not, you're just another neocon/teabagger parrot blowing smoke as usual.*

Greece has a capitalist economy with a *public sector accounting for about 40% of GDP* .........The economy contracted by 2% in 2009, 4% in 2010, and 5% in 2011. Greece violated the EU's Growth and Stability Pact budget deficit criterion of no more than 3% of GDP from 2001 to 2006, but finally met that criterion in 2007-08, before exceeding it again in 2009, with the deficit reaching 15% of GDP......17% unemployment....taxes 39.9% of GDP.....2011 budget deficit 9.6% of GDP......Public debt 165.4% of GDP (2011 est.)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gr.html

Need any more proof? LOL!


----------



## HUGGY (Mar 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Yup nothing screams pure capitalism like a black market..free from rules and regulations...
> ...



Really?  I don't think so.  Most of "the rules" are intended to keep the rich rich and in control of the access and delivery of what people need.  I have been a partaker in black markets most of my life and frankly...prefer the honesty and simplicity of it.  I would prefer it that you price yourselves out of reach of average people in medical services and pharmacudicals.  

Same goes for gasoline.  I suspect the hyjacking of petroleum tanker trucks will increase also.  If gasoline hits 7 or eight bucks a gallon a 10,000 gallon truck will be worth over 50 thou.  That's as much as I used to get for flying a load of pot in from Colombia.  

Go ahead on and call other people "confused" if it makes you think you are superior.  It is to my advantage that you underestimate me.  That's what the CONz do best.  Underestimate.  Chumps.


----------



## Foxfyre (Mar 30, 2012)

HUGGY said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



And yet the only places in the world in which the hypothetical horror stories you put out there have actually happened has been in countries with authoritarian,  dictatorships, or totalitarian governments that controlled everything including healthcare.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2012)

The Rabbi said:


> Yes, declare victory even in the face of obvious humiliation.  You are a tool and a half.



As the chronology of the posts shows how I left the "rabbi" unable to counter my last response to him, it seems all he's got now is sour grapes.

Pity the synagog that has this stupid git as their "rabbi"!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 30, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Greece is bankrupt because too many Greeks get too many benefits and too few Greeks pay into the system.
> 
> *Is this your personal assessment or something you got off of right wing media/punditry. Either way you should be able to provide documentation to support your assertions....just like I did. If not, you're just another neocon/teabagger parrot blowing smoke as usual.*
> 
> ...




Greece joined the EU in 1981, and adopted the Euro as currency in 2001

Greece - European Commission

Connect this information with my previous links, and it (once again) proves my original statements and (once again) proves that YOU, Todd, don't know WTF you're talking about beyond what Limbaugh tells you and what your half-assed, myopic "research" finds that you like.

I need no more proof that you are an idiot, Todd.  Laugh, clown, laugh.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 30, 2012)

but neither libertarians nor Republicans want capitalism without rules. That would be anarchy, not capitalism. *You seem very confused*?[/QUOTE]




HUGGY said:


> Really?  I don't think so.



so then why be so afraid to give your most substantive example?? What does your fear tell you? Anarchy??




HUGGY said:


> I have been a partaker in black markets most of my life and frankly...prefer the honesty and simplicity of it.  I would prefer it that you price yourselves out of reach of average people in medical services and pharmacudicals.
> 
> Same goes for gasoline.  I suspect the hyjacking of petroleum tanker trucks will increase also.  If gasoline hits 7 or eight bucks a gallon a 10,000 gallon truck will be worth over 50 thou.  That's as much as I used to get for flying a load of pot in from Colombia.
> 
> Go ahead on and call other people "confused" if it makes you think you are superior.  It is to my advantage that you underestimate me.  That's what the CONz do best.  Underestimate.  Chumps.



no idea what subject you are on, do you have any idea? It seems you've learned the difference between capitalism and anarchy anyway. Nice try at changing the subject.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 30, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Greece is bankrupt because too many Greeks get too many benefits and too few Greeks pay into the system.
> ...



Wow, "Greece joined the EU in 1981, and adopted the Euro as currency in 2001", I guess that means they don't hand out too many benefits.

Thanks!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




And there you have it folks,  Todd has neither the intellectual honesty or courage to just acknowledge (let alone admit) that he is wrong on a point.  That and/or Todd is just too fucking dumb to comprehend what he reads.  As the chronology of the posts shows, Todd has been reduced to a babbling neocon parrot (again).  I leave him to his predictable retorts.


----------



## Douger (Mar 31, 2012)

Yeah. It's number one all right.#1 North of Mexico and #1 South of Canada. Nada mas.
http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews...-HSNews_Notitas_Campaign_Daily#When:22:19:34Z


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 31, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Let me know if you ever prove one of your claims. Thanks!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Mar 31, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> And there you have it folks,  Todd has neither the intellectual honesty or courage to just acknowledge (let alone admit) that he is wrong on a point.



sadly, it is true that Southern Europe has been way too liberal and now Germany if forcing them to become more conservative, i.e., cut back the huge out of control liberal government. Does anyone deny this is what is happening?

Is Germany forcing them to spend more? Would you force a dead drunk sailor to drink more or cut back?


----------



## Meister (Mar 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Forces told me to rep this comment, Todd.  Enjoy.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > And there you have it folks,  Todd has neither the intellectual honesty or courage to just acknowledge (let alone admit) that he is wrong on a point.
> ...



Not quite....Germany's solvency is not wholly indicative to being "more conservative"...just checking into their healthcare system would tell you that.

The EU got screwed royally when the toxic packages of mortgage loans from the US was put on the market and into their banks.  Mind you, they weren't perfect to begin with.


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2012)

Meister said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Aww, isn't that cute Tweedle dumb the moderator is comforting and rooting for Tweedle dumber Todd!

Carry on, boys....you're just making my point all the more.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 31, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Awww, can't get any of your dumb buddies to play?

*What screwed Greece's economy was having the likes of Goldman Sach's fudge the books for it's admittance into the EU....*

Still funny!


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 31, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...




It's only funny to dummies who leave out the rest of the sentence that they've taken out of context in order to make their intellectually dishonest point.

The chronology of the post will ALWAYS be your undoing, chuckles. Carry on!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 31, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



There is no context that makes your claim true. Sorry.


----------



## Meister (Mar 31, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



WTF?


----------



## Listening (Apr 1, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...



I am afraid he can be.....


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 1, 2012)

Meister said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I been asking wtf is the matter with Todd for sometime, Meister old thing.  My responses and documented support makes Todd's parroting all the more foolish.  Seems Toddles just like's having the last word, as in his mind it's akin to a decisive fact based conclusion.  

Seems YOU'RE a little cuckoo if you're backing Todd's insipidly stubborn bullshit and denial...why, I have no idea.  But hey, if it keeps you off the streets, have at it.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 1, 2012)

Listening said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Decepticon said:
> ...



If Soggy can't answer some simple questions honestly and with facts to back his statements, how does that make Decepticon "stupid"?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are a sorry little man, Toddles

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5008101-post416.html

You're so far into denial, Toddles, that you should apply for a job at Fox News or the Washington Times!  Carry on!


----------



## Meister (Apr 1, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Seems like your just full of yourself....maybe too much in the opinion of most on this board. just sayin'.....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*Wrong. What screwed Greece's economy was having the likes of Goldman Sach's fudge the books for it's admittance into the EU....and let's not forget all those American banks that mixed toxic packages of housing loans with their stable loans and then sold them on the international market.*

No proof of your claims there.
Thanks for trying?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 1, 2012)

Meister said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


Translation: Meister cannot pick up the gauntlet of the defeated Toddler and effectively debate the issue using facts and logic.  So instead, Meister cheers on the Toddler and tries to deflect the discussion to an exchange of personal attacks.

Tweedle dumb and Tweedle dumber....it would be funny if they weren't so pathetic.  I'll leave the Meister in the same humiliation hole as the Toddler...their failed tactics and maudlin exchanges should be entertaining for a bit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



There goes Brave Sir Robin. Run away!


----------



## Intense (Apr 1, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> 
> 
> Oh, because US healthcare costs more and it provides worse outcomes.
> ...



Power Corrupts, Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely. Trick Question, right?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



And as you can see folks, the Toddler is so intellectually dishonest and bankrupt that he dare not even address the post or the information contained/linked within

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5008101-post416.html

Instead, the Toddler keeps taking a paragraph or sentence out of context, and then ignore all subsequent fact based information....and then keeps making assertions based on his pathological willful ignorance.  So be it....I've proven my point time and again to the objective, honest reader.  Therefore, no need to further entertain this buffoonish Toddler.  I leave him to parrot the SOS he's done so far, and to maudlin exchanges with his like minded supporters & compadres.

Say goodnight, gracie.


----------



## Mia (Apr 1, 2012)

I don't care for rationing and waiting lists. Here, in our two-tiered system, even those with free care do not wait. They might wait to get signed up and started on free care, but once they have it they can see a Dr within a month for non-emergency. 

In some countries with UHC everyone has to wait. Way too long.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 1, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Cut and paste your proof......or run away, Robin.


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 1, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



***Numerous consecutive cheap shots by you rather than responding?

***** *Huh? He practically quoted one of YOUR links at the other end of YOUR link. I know, because I just read your linked link.


----------



## Ropey (Apr 1, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So far I'm waiting some proof from taichiliberal as well.  Otherwise, I'll have to go with you. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8]Brave Sir Robin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 2, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...


----------



## Ropey (Apr 2, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Gotta have some entertainment while I wait for taich's proofs.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 3, 2012)

Mia said:


> I don't care for rationing and waiting lists. Here, in our two-tiered system, even those with free care do not wait. They might wait to get signed up and started on free care, but once they have it they can see a Dr within a month for non-emergency.
> 
> In some countries with UHC everyone has to wait. Way too long.



Newsflash for ya, Mia.....if you don't have healthcare insurance, you don't get attention UNLESS it's at the emergency room, or you pay UP FRONT AND OUT OF POCKET.

Do your homework to see if I'm lying......and if you want to know if health insurance companies are doing right by their clients all the time, just go ask Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 3, 2012)

Decepticon said:


> Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???



Because they all love having shitty health care, obviously.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 3, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



What's the matter sweetheart?  Too dumb or too lazy or too cowardly to just click back on the arrows and READ the preceding posts?  You could do a search using my screen name to see all the posts.

Then if you STILL don't understand what I wrote OR THE INFORMATION IN THE LINKS I PROVIDED, I'll try and explain it again.

Other than that, you may continue to blow smoke up Toddler's ass.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Decepticon said:
> 
> 
> > Why are no socialist countries switching to our system of private insurance???
> ...


Or maybe because insurance isn't the only way that Americans pay their medical expenses.

But such a little detail would totally fuck up a slew of talking points of the socialized medicine crowd, so it has to be ignored.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 3, 2012)

Ropey said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




What's the matter sweetheart? Too dumb or too lazy or too cowardly to just click back on the arrows and READ the preceding posts? You could do a search using my screen name to see all the posts.

Then if you STILL don't understand what I wrote OR THE INFORMATION IN THE LINKS I PROVIDED, I'll try and explain it again.  That is, if you've actually got the stones to discuss the content rather than your opinion.

Other than that, you may continue to blow smoke up Toddler's ass.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 3, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Did you READ any of the material I sourced, Becki dear?  

I doubt it, because all you've done here is cry croccodile tears about my retorts to the Toddler.  The chronology of the posts shows who threw the first stone...TFB for the Toddler or YOU if I give better than I get.

My source information provides what the Toddler leaves out, which supports my statements and derails his contentions and beliefs.  But I suspect the like the Toddler, YOU have an intellectual impediment that prevents you from honestly discussing ALL the facts.  Instead, you just read what you think supports your case, and then you go brain dead.

Prove me wrong, or confirm my assessment.....or continue to blow smoke up the Toddler's ass.  Your move.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Or maybe because insurance isn't the only way that Americans pay their medical expenses.
> 
> But such a little detail would totally fuck up a slew of talking points of the socialized medicine crowd, so it has to be ignored.



Dude can you be less vague in your ramblings and please babble less incoherently? Give purpose to your posts, make a statement worth something, don't just say something sarcastic smug and snarky and then run away.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 3, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe because insurance isn't the only way that Americans pay their medical expenses.
> ...


Lots and lots of Americans pay for their medical expenses with cash, you dolt.

Maybe you could be just a little less purposefully obtuse.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Lots and lots of Americans pay for their medical expenses with cash, you dolt.




Lots and lots? Really? Lots? How much is lots and lots exactly?





> Maybe you could be just a little less purposefully obtuse.



Maybe you can be a little less quantitative in your analysis, but I doubt it.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 3, 2012)

What would be the point in being quantitative in the presence of those who keep repeating the "40-50 million uninsured" lie?

I mean really....No matter how many times that completely bogus number gets debunked, it just gets inflated even more.

In any case, the fact remains that there are millions of Americans who pay for various and sundry medical procedures without the aid of insurers...Deal with it.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> What would be the point in being quantitative in the presence of those who keep repeating the "40-50 million uninsured" lie?



Sorry, I thought you had  a point you were trying to make.



> I mean really....No matter how many times that completely bogus number gets debunked, it just gets inflated even more.




I haven't mentioned it at least once.



> In any case, the fact remains that there are millions of Americans who pay for various and sundry medical procedures without the aid of insurers...



What's your point exactly? If you are uninsured you kinda have to pay cash, don't you? So I'm failing to see what your point is.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 3, 2012)

The point is that there are millions and millions of people who pay for their medical procedures out-of-pocket every day....Yet, know it all socialists like you completely ignore such facts, in lieu of pretending that the only truly legitimate way of paying one's medical costs is to pass them on to an third party insurer.

Maybe you're not half as smart as your alleged credentials would tend to project.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 3, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The point is that there are millions and millions of people who pay for their medical procedures out-of-pocket every day....Yet, know it all socialists like you completely ignore such facts,




I've not "ignored" such a fact,  I just don't see how it fits together when any kind of argument you are trying to make. Are you suggesting that all those millions of people who pay with cash have several million in the bank and could hence handle the worst case health scenarios, or are you saying that we should all pay out of pocket and just hope nothing really expensive ever happens?




> in lieu of pretending that the only truly legitimate way of paying one's medical costs is to pass them on to an third party insurer.



Huh? You are making absolutely no sense. Who is pretending that its not "legitimate" to pay for medical costs with cash? What the fuck are you even talking about? Its quite clear that the typical American does not have sufficient money to self insure against the worst case health scenarios because the typical American does not have millions of  sitting around ready to be liquidated if they get really sick. So your point as I take it is that there are millions of uninsured Americans who pay with cash for now but if something really bad happens to them, most of them won't be able to afford the expenses? Is that your point?


To reliably self insure yourself against worst case health scenarios requires at least $1,000,000 ready to go. Anyone who's got that amount of money and is willing to lose it to the whims of fate, fine, makes sense if they self insure. Anyone with less than that who is self insured stands to lose everything in a health catastrophe.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 3, 2012)

You're the one who intimated that lack of socialized medical services = shitty health care.

Do you read your own posts for comprehension before you click the submit button?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that there are millions and millions of people who pay for their medical procedures out-of-pocket every day....Yet, know it all socialists like you completely ignore such facts,
> ...




Oddball doesn't rely on facts or the logic derived from those facts....all he needs are the myopic viewpoints from Fox noise that coincide with his beliefs, and he's off and running.

I truly would love to see Oddballs stats as to how many Americans pay for ALL their medical problems out of pocket...and EXACTLY what are those "problems".  Must be Oddball's 1% friends, because it sure as hell ain't joe & jane middle/working/poor class.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

Oddball said:


> You're the one who intimated that lack of socialized medical services = shitty health care.



Nope.

BTW, in England, which has socialized medicine, you are allowed to buy your health care from the private market instead if you so choose.

So you have no point.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> To reliably self insure yourself against worst case health scenarios requires at least $1,000,000 ready to go. Anyone who's got that amount of money and is willing to lose it to the whims of fate, fine, makes sense if they self insure. Anyone with less than that who is self insured stands to lose everything in a health catastrophe.



Wrong...!

If we as Americans payed for the small expenditures of our healthcare and not run to our insurance card every time we need a scipt filled or go to the dr's office for a cold or God forbid we break a bone!
If we just took care of the small things ourselves, and had insurance for the catastrophic things like cancer and serious injuries etc etc... we could all afford insurance.
Oh, and stop with all the medical malpractice lawsuits... have you seen the commercials on late night TV??? Jeez....

One more thing... let insurance companies sell across state lines.... there is a fix for ya.
More competition = lower prices.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who intimated that lack of socialized medical services = shitty health care.
> ...



If its so good there, why do Brits come here for care?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > To reliably self insure yourself against worst case health scenarios requires at least $1,000,000 ready to go. Anyone who's got that amount of money and is willing to lose it to the whims of fate, fine, makes sense if they self insure. Anyone with less than that who is self insured stands to lose everything in a health catastrophe.
> ...




Thanks. My wife and I will just drop the coverage we have through work and pay more for a private plan that gives us less. That would make lots of financial sense.



> Oh, and stop with all the medical malpractice lawsuits...


I've never had one.


> have you seen the commercials on late night TV??? Jeez....


No, I have a life. 



> One more thing... let insurance companies sell across state lines.... there is a fix for ya.
> More competition = lower prices.


Insurance companies are already allowed to sell their products in multiple states. United Health Care for instance. So I don't see what you're trying to say, unless its that you don't believe states should have the right to regulate commerce within their own borders.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Typically when people from other 1st world nations receive medical care in the U.S. its because they were here on business or vacation and had an unexpected medical issue.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 4, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Run away!


----------



## Douger (Apr 4, 2012)

Matrix of Rackets - Clusterfuck Nation


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 4, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> you don't believe states should have the right to regulate commerce within their own borders.



1) commerce clause in Constitution was created to promote free trade between states

2) states got an exception in health care through McCarren Ferguson, proceeded to regulate and drive up costs 3 times what they would  be in truly national market.

3) of course its all over a liberals head but try to imagine what would happen to the price of tooth paste is each state had its own standards. Now you understand why the USA is competitive except in health insurance costs.


So, states should regulate heath insurance if they are stupid and want to drive up costs to 3 times normal free market price.


----------



## dblack (Apr 4, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > you don't believe states should have the right to regulate commerce within their own borders.
> ...



No way man. It was created to allow the feds to force people to buy shit they don't want. 'Cause, you know - the insurance companies need our money.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 4, 2012)

dblack said:


> . It was created to allow the feds to force people to buy shit they don't want. .



any reason to think that???


----------



## dblack (Apr 4, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > . It was created to allow the feds to force people to buy shit they don't want. .
> ...



Because Obama said so?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 4, 2012)

dblack said:


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



BO created the Commerce Clause??


----------



## grammahiker (Apr 4, 2012)

I know lots of people who go out of the country to get BETTER and cheaper and more advanced health care procedures done. Facilities are friendlier, more efficient, cleaner and patients repeat visits. Who wants to bother with all the forms and red tape and 5 times the cost than here. There is an eye surgery they have been doing successfully in Canada for years that they don't do yet here. The U.S. is held back because of the people who own the Health Care Insurance Companies. None of them want that gravy train to stop and they contribute more campaign money than any other industry. Their lobbyists pay politicians millions of dollars cash under the table to keep telling the lies. It is all about the money and nothing else. Our health care is so screwed up. For what we pay all the money that goes into it, consider how many billions every year go into their record profits every year, they even admit it, health care lawyers, health care consultants, health care payment claims processing warehouses, If we could pay a much lesser amount into one giant fund and have it all flow into paying none of that crap but to the one processor then onto hospitals, caregivers, medications, preventive and rehabilitation and medication just think how much healthier we'd all be!. Healthier people are more productive. More productive people drive up the GDP and the GNP and that will bring more money into the country so we can rebuild our infrastructure and all grow richer and our Nation will be stronger or we can just keep the profits skyrocketing for the few who own the healthcare insurance companies and most of us will keep going with out necessary procedures and keep getting sicker and end as burdens on their families and society.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 4, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Primarily, they don't. They idea that people come in droves to the US for care is largely an overblown myth.

However, when it comes to Cancer treatment, the US is the best in achieving a successful outcome ie survivability.

In other conditions, the best doctors come here to the US because they can make money here. But, they are very, very, very expensive and the vast majority of Americans could never get seen by them, let alone treated. They are doctors for the elite only and they will exist no matter what  system we are under.

In the few cases in which poor people come to the US for treatment, it's either: Their case is high profile or an anomaly, which will yield a paper or it's done pro bono for PR.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> 2) states got an exception in health care through McCarren Ferguson, proceeded to regulate and drive up costs 3 times what they would  be in truly national market.



Three times? You know this how? Because it sounds like a good number to you?



> 3) of course its all over a liberals head but try to imagine what would happen to the price of tooth paste is each state had its own standards. Now you understand why the USA is competitive except in health insurance costs.



States are quite free to have their own standards for toothpaste, food, drugs - whatever you like - its called federalism.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

dblack said:


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



No he didn't.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 4, 2012)

grammahiker said:


> I know lots of people who go out of the country to get BETTER and cheaper and more advanced health care procedures done.



I get all my dental work done in Mexico.

Its definitely not better than here. But it costs 1/10th the amount and its certainly not 10 times worse.



> Facilities are friendlier, more efficient, cleaner and patients repeat visits. Who wants to bother with all the forms and red tape and 5 times the cost than here.




In the U.S. when the doc thinks you might have sleep apnea, they send you to a "sleep clinic", which is basically a place you go to sleep for a night while your insurance company pours thousands upon thousands of dollars into the doc's checking account and the accounts of whatever CPAP manufacturer the doc is in bed with.

In Canada I hear they send you home with a pulse oximeter. The disease can be diagnosed based on oxygen levels in the blood while sleeping. Turns out that isn't that expensive to figure out - but the "sleep clinic" makes people a lot more money (except you and your insurance company)


----------



## dblack (Apr 5, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


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



When he signed PPACA, and instructed his lawyers to defend it on the basis of the commerce clause, he did.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 5, 2012)

grammahiker said:


> I know lots of people who go out of the country to get BETTER and cheaper and more advanced health care procedures done. Facilities are friendlier, more efficient, cleaner and patients repeat visits. Who wants to bother with all the forms and red tape and 5 times the cost than here. There is an eye surgery they have been doing successfully in Canada for years that they don't do yet here. The U.S. is held back because of the people who own the Health Care Insurance Companies. None of them want that gravy train to stop and they contribute more campaign money than any other industry. Their lobbyists pay politicians millions of dollars cash under the table to keep telling the lies. It is all about the money and nothing else. Our health care is so screwed up. For what we pay all the money that goes into it, consider how many billions every year go into their record profits every year, they even admit it, health care lawyers, health care consultants, health care payment claims processing warehouses, If we could pay a much lesser amount into one giant fund and have it all flow into paying none of that crap but to the one processor then onto hospitals, caregivers, medications, preventive and rehabilitation and medication just think how much healthier we'd all be!. Healthier people are more productive. More productive people drive up the GDP and the GNP and that will bring more money into the country so we can rebuild our infrastructure and all grow richer and our Nation will be stronger or we can just keep the profits skyrocketing for the few who own the healthcare insurance companies and most of us will keep going with out necessary procedures and keep getting sicker and end as burdens on their families and society.



The problem with your concept is that it doesn't work anywhere it is tried.  In order to have one big pool of money to fund it all, you have to have massive rules and regulations for the administration of that money which adds layers and layers of bureaucracy to a system that is already so bloated and top heavy and convoluted that noboby few even know what their job is actually accompllishing; much less do they have any good feel for how healthcare is actually administered to those receiving it.

And that huge, bloated, and ever growing bureaucracy swallows up more and more--huge chunks--of the money that never gets to anybody that actually needs it.

One example of why the federal government should not be in charge of administration of healthcare.  My aunt has severe osteoporosis that required regular injections to control.  When blood tests showed that the injections she was getting were also affecting her liver, they had to stop them and find another treatment.

The most effective treatment, which incidentally is the cheapest, Medicare has not approved unless the person has had their gall bladder removed.  I asked the doctor what the gall bladder has to do with osteoporosis and he said nothing.  It was just one of hundreds of ridiculous rules the federal government includes in Medicare regulations.

If we put our healthcare system back into a free market system, those lobbyists would have nobody to lobby to write ridiculous rules and regulations controlling our healthcare.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 5, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> If we put our healthcare system back into a free market system, those lobbyists would have nobody to lobby to write ridiculous rules and regulations controlling our healthcare.




yes all 12,000 liberal lobbyists would have no liberal politicians to buy off if we  had the IQ to understand Republican capitalism


----------



## usmcstinger (Apr 5, 2012)

The average American worker pays $3,515 annually for family coverage, according to a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust




Public expenditure on health
As a percentage of total expenditure on health
France: 77.9
Germany: 76.9
UK:  84.1
USA 47.7
Health: Key Tables from OECD - OECD iLibrary*Public expenditure on health*


----------



## dblack (Apr 5, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> The average American worker pays $3,515 annually for family coverage, according to a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust



Yeah.. that's dumb. They should stop doing that.


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 5, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> The average American worker pays $3,515 annually for family coverage, according to a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And upon closer examination:

_Countries with governments and economies similar to the United States have come up with a variety of methods to make sure that all of their citizens receive health care. While residents in Europe and Japan may pay higher insurance premiums or taxes than Americans, in the end, when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered. (Data most recent available as of July 2008)_
Compare International Medical Bills : NPR



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

Health Care Expenditures: An International Comparison | Online NewsHour | August 21, 2009 | PBS


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 5, 2012)

usmcstinger said:


> The average American worker pays $3,515 annually for family coverage, according to a 2009 survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now go back and examine U.S. healthcosts against those of other countries BEFORE the government started meddling and driving up prices.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 6, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered.



does this mean you favor less government intervention?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 6, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > when all costs are added up, Americans spend more money on health care per person with fewer people covered.
> ...



Are you referring to gov't regulation of a private health insurance system that has screwed us to the point where DESPITE more money being spent, fewer people are covered?  Because that's what my previous link showed.


----------



## dblack (Apr 6, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



This conflates two different issues. Those of us complaining about intrusive regulation aren't suggesting insurance companies should be allowed to rip people off. They should cover what they say they're going to cover and they should be held accountable for whatever promises they make. The kind of regulation that _is_ causing problems, however, involves the state dictating specifics of policies - essentially telling customers what kind of insurance they're allowed to buy. 

A good example of the kind of intervention that causes more problems than it solves are the recent efforts of the Obama administration to force all insurance plans to cover birth control. This isn't government protecting us, this is government telling us what kind of insurance coverage we can and can't buy.


----------



## Vidi (Apr 7, 2012)

dblack said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



Nooooo. Its telling insurance companies what they HAVE to cover. Its not the same thing.

And they tell them they HAVE to cover these things because they STOPPED covering those things and raised their rates at the same time.

A decade ago, I hade AMAZING coverage compared to today and it was a mediocre plan at best. Today I pay as a percentage of my income over 300% more, have a deductible thats increased ten fold and recieve less overall benefits.

Decent coverage is ridiculously overpriced because health care costs are ridiculously overpriced.

NO ONE is talking about the real reason the Affordable Care Act is bad. its bad because it doesnt deal at all with Affordable Care, only with Affordable insurance. Everyones so busy arguing partisan talking points they completely missed the fact that the Affordable Care Act does nothing to deal with the issue for which it is named!

You want to bash Obama? Bash him for the shit he ACTUALLY failed on. ( and trust me, Im gonna vote for the guy because the alternative sucks worse, and theres PLENTY to bash Obama for ) Not the shit NeoCons are pretending to hate all the while taking bribes from insurance companies.


----------



## rdean (Apr 7, 2012)

Government run VA is the best in the world.  For a number of reasons.  Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally.  Things like that happen in a system so large.  But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient.  In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.

The Republican leadership may have convinced their ignorant base that health care is bad, but the reality is medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy.


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 7, 2012)

rdean said:


> Government run VA is the best in the world.  For a number of reasons.  Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally.  Things like that happen in a system so large.  But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient.  In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.
> 
> The Republican leadership may have convinced their ignorant base that health care is bad, but the reality is medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptcy.


Yes, the VA is 100% Socialist.


----------



## usmcstinger (Apr 7, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Government run VA is the best in the world.  For a number of reasons.  Sure, you may have a story about a dirty hospital occasionally.  Things like that happen in a system so large.  But they spend 94 cents of every dollar on the patient.  In fact, for some countries, our VA was the model.
> ...


 
VA Health Care Benefits are earned for placing one's life on the line for Our Country.

VA Hospitals that are connected to Teaching Hospitals will more probably than not provide the beast health care. The Manhattan VA is connected to the NYU Medical Center (one of the best hospitals in the USA).

However, the waiting time for operations and other medical procedures has always been a problem. The VA many times lacks the most up to date medical equipment and Doctors who are not skilled in new medical procedures . Those VA Hospitals associated with good teaching hospitals can send patients to them rather than moving medical equipment over to the VA.

Since I am service connected disabled Vietnam Veteran, I use the VA Health Care System.


----------



## dblack (Apr 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



How is it not? If someone wants to buy insurance coverage that doesn't cover what the state mandates (which might be cheaper and better suit their needs) then this kind of regulation does exactly that. It regulates customers and their choices every bit as much as it does the insurance companies.



> NO ONE is talking about the real reason the Affordable Care Act is bad. its bad because it doesnt deal at all with Affordable Care, only with Affordable insurance. Everyones so busy arguing partisan talking points they completely missed the fact that the Affordable Care Act does nothing to deal with the issue for which it is named!



Excellent point. In fact, much of it seems designed to do the opposite and will actually accelerate health care inflation.



> You want to bash Obama? Bash him for the shit he ACTUALLY failed on. ( and trust me, Im gonna vote for the guy because the alternative sucks worse, and theres PLENTY to bash Obama for ) Not the shit NeoCons are pretending to hate all the while taking bribes from insurance companies.



I don't really want to bash Obama. At this point, I'm hoping he wins re-election***.  I'm also hoping the Supreme Court strikes down ACA and the Republicans keep one side of Congress - just to keep gridlock in place. 

But health care reform _was_ one of his biggest failures. And the failure was directly attributable to his greatest failing as a leader, in my view. His idea of governance is the classic corporatist strategy of wheeling and dealing with all the 'major players' in a given setting. He sees government as a 'power broker', twisting arms, granting favors and threatening penalties to achieve it's goals. That's how we ended up with the fucked up quid-pro-quo of the ACA.

The core of the whole thing is a trade, offered up to the insurance industry by the Obama administration - "We'll give you the golden goose (mandated customers) in exchange for dropping pre-existing conditions exclusions." And lets not pretend; he HAD to get their buy-in before the bill could go forward. The insurance lobby had, and has, enough clout to stop health care reform if they didn't approve.

As irrational as the demand to drop pre-existing conditions is, Obama knew it would be very popular with idiot voters. And he figured they'd be so excited by the prospect that they'd happily submit themselves to mandated lifetime contracts with the insurance industry in exchange. It remains to be seen whether he was right.

I'm not an Obama hater. I don't think he has ill intent. But he's pushing us toward a type of government I believe is very dangerous, one that people who do have ill intent will be happy to use in the future. By abandoning the rule of law and embracing the corporatist regulatory regime we're laying the groundwork for government we will no longer be able to control democratically.

***(actually I'm hoping voters wake the fuck up and realize they don't have to vote for Republocrats, but ...)


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 7, 2012)

Vidi said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



I have dblack on IA because I just got tired of yet another neocon/teabagger parrot squawking the SOS with the usual.  

What you say has a grain of truth in it, though.  I'm interested in just how affordable the gov't alternative to private insurance companies is.


----------



## Foxfyre (Apr 7, 2012)

The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level.   But the ACA is bad because:

1.  It was never intended to make insurance affordable.  If that had been the goal, Obama would have addressed ways to get the federal government out of it, to encourage and endorse tort reform, to break up the insurance monopolies within the states and promote and encourage a competitive free market system.

2.  It was never intended to insure the uninsured.  If that had been the goal, all they had to do is establish a government fund to provide insurance to the few million temporarily uninsured and encourage doctors and hospitals and other medical providers to require up front payment for services from those who choose not to buy insurance or arrange a payment schedule with all who can't pay for the service they get at the time they get it. 

3.  It was never intended to bring down healthcare costs as all the experts who explained that it would not do that were ignored.

4.  It was intended as a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and destroy the private healthcare system and eventually achieve a government owned single payer system while putting unprecedented control and power into the hands of the President and the bureaucracy that he administers.  It was intended to create dozens/hundreds of new bureaucracies to administer it and legions of new IRS agents to enforce it.

It was an important step in the total socialization of the USA.   If he achieves this step, the next one will almost certainly be a federal takeover of education and making federal public education mandatory for every student.


----------



## Greenbeard (Apr 7, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level.



And yet states are the heart of the ACA. They're the ones designing and customizing the structures in the ACA (e.g. Maryland just put the finishing touches on the legislative phase of exchange design in the state this week).



> 1.  It was never intended to make insurance affordable.  If that had been the goal, Obama would have addressed ways to get the federal government out of it, to encourage and endorse tort reform, to break up the insurance monopolies within the states and promote and encourage a competitive free market system.



Encourage and endorse tort reform by offering states funding to develop, implement, and evaluate tort reform? Break up monopolies by providing start-up loans to new nonprofit, consumer-run insurers in every state, and by requiring that multiple multi-state insurance plans be introduced in all state insurance markets? Encourage a competitive free market system by creating new marketplaces in every state that will allow consumers to make easy side-by-side, apples-to-apples comparisons of plan offerings, all while viewing cost and quality ratings of insurance plans?



> 2.  It was never intended to insure the uninsured.  If that had been the goal, all they had to do is establish a government fund to provide insurance to the few million temporarily uninsured and encourage doctors and hospitals and other medical providers to require up front payment for services from those who choose not to buy insurance or arrange a payment schedule with all who can't pay for the service they get at the time they get it.



Establish a government fund like some kind of "pre-existing condition insurance plan" that quickly shows, through relatively low enrollment and high per-enrollee spending, why dedicated high-risk pools are so poorly equipped to accomplish this goal? Encourage upfront payment from the uninsured by scaling back the federal DSH payments that compensate providers for losses on the uninsured?



> 3.  It was never intended to bring down healthcare costs as all the experts who explained that it would not do that were ignored.



Forgive me if by this point I'm beginning to question your familiarity with 1) the contents of the ACA, and 2) what "experts" think.

One hopes that any reform law would be chock full of the payment and delivery system reforms that actual experts across the ideological spectrum have suggested are necessary for addressing health spending growth and achieving value in health spending.



> 4.  It was intended as a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy and destroy the private healthcare system and eventually achieve a government owned single payer system while putting unprecedented control and power into the hands of the President and the bureaucracy that he administers.  It was intended to create dozens/hundreds of new bureaucracies to administer it and legions of new IRS agents to enforce it.



A pity, the post started so promising but ended up firmly in wingnut territory.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 8, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> A pity, the post started so promising but ended up firmly in wingnut territory.



Do you want BO to control all industries  the way he wants to control health care? Do you want to deregulate like China just did to save 30 million from from slow liberal starvation? Or does the liberal believe  the next king or dictator or benevolent liberal dictator will create a well regulated society that won't be killing 10's of millions?


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 8, 2012)

Foxfyre said:


> The Affordable Care Act actually has some acceptable things in it. . . IF. . . .it came from the State and not the Federal level.   But the ACA is bad because:
> 
> 
> States and the Federal gov't CONSISTENTLY negotiate laws and regulations.  What you propose here would be an insane noise from State to state, which would essentially need some type of REGULATION between the states....at the same time the insurance companies would STILL be needed to keep them from screwing their clients over on pre-existing conditions, etc.
> ...



More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense.  Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 9, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense.  Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.



real Republicans and libertarians want capitalistic health care to lower costs and raise quality. Here's how it works, people spend their own money so they don't waste it, providers must compete with each other on the basis of price and quality? This why for example a computer costs less and does 10 times more than it did 10 years ago?

Is that really over a liberal's head?  See why we are so positive a liberal will be very very slow?


----------



## Vidi (Apr 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense.  Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.
> ...



As soon as that capitalist ideal kicks in and actually lowers costs, Ill happily support it. But as its been fairly elusive in pretty much every aspect of the marketplace from gas prices, to food prices to health care, I think maybe we ought to step in and see why the hell its not working.

Is that really over YOUR head?


( See how I didnt condemn ALL conservatives at the end there, just you? )


----------



## taichiliberal (Apr 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > More Hannity and Maulkin nonsense.  Pure right-wingnut speculaton that defends the horrendous status quo.
> ...



Seems that "real" republicans and libertarians are spewing the same old mypoic BS that has supported the reaganomics for the past 30....and subsequently screwed this country into the ground financially.

Here's how it works:  Corporations hire lobbyist to essentially buy our politicians...who in turn DEREGULATE industry oversight while at the same time giving serious tax breaks to rich folks and corporations.   The results....let's focus on healthcare insurance...are that private industries and corporations maximize profit while minimizing services to the very entities that support them....THE CONSUMERS.  So you have people paying into health insurance companies for DECADES, only to be unscrupiously dumped for the most shady of "reasons' (just ask Dr. Peelo or Wendell Potter, for starters) or have their rates inflated for no decent reason.

So the healthcare reform that the Obama administration passed essentially puts some restrictions on the insurance industry, as well as giving the populace some alternatives while NOT taking away anyone's ability to choose the insurance they want....and the status quo healthcare insurance companies don't like it.  TFB.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 9, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*Corporations hire lobbyist to essentially buy our politicians...who in turn DEREGULATE industry oversight*

Or they lobby government to get them to include their service as required in insurance coverage. That's why you can't buy a policy that excludes chiropractic services. And dozens of others you don't want and won't use. Every one added adds to the cost of your coverage. And you can't buy a plan from a different state that doesn't require these services.

Yeah, our problem is too little government interference with insurance.


----------

