# How much should health care cost? Should it cost anything?



## Bern80 (Jan 27, 2011)

That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions. 

So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2011)




----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2011)

XXXXXX


this is just a test.. yes,, the XXXXXXX word is still allowed even though it has been **** in my sig line. Kerry On.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2011)

There are many ways to pay for a Health Care system. Differant ways in Britian, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, and Taiwan. 

Nobody is suggesting that it does not have to be paid for. In fact, were we to have a real system, it would cost me less than the insurance I now have. For more information;

FRONTLINE: sick around the world | PBS

In none of the democracies are there citizens going bankrupt because of medical bills. That is our privilege alone of all the western democracies.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> In none of the democracies are there citizens going bankrupt because of medical bills. That is our privilege alone of all the western democracies.



Nope, just their governments.

And you didn't answer the question. Should it be paid for through taxes and government administered or should indiivudals have to pay for the medical services they require?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 27, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> XXXXX
> 
> 
> this is just a test.. yes,, the XXXXX word is still allowed even though it has been **** in my sig line. Kerry On.



Ah, Widdo Willyo, no one should try to improve your classyness.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 27, 2011)

But you didn't answer the question.  How much should it cost?

I'm a 58 year old man, have a 17 year old kid and a policy that I pay $280 a month for insurance.  I do not expect to go to the Dr and pay him $20 and the insurance  pay the remainder.  I can and should pay my doctor visit the same as my parentd and the same as their parents did.

let me digress.  When I say the insurance pay the remainder what I am saying is that you are paying for me.  Since insurance is a social compact where the risk is spread among the people belonging to the same insurance company, you would be the one paying the remainder of the doctors visit.

So if I can pay my Dr...why should I expect you to pay but that is what many American's want....someone else to pay.

Today I was reading about a couple that are suing over Obama Care.  Their pleading is that  "accord*ing to their complaint, &#8220;the immediate reduction of long-term purchasing power&#8221; is a legal injury to them &#8220;directly resulting from the unconstitutional individual mandate and penalty.

On March 27, they began shopping for a new automobile. Their $450-a-month disposable income only allowed them to afford a five year financing plan.

Four days earlier, President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.   The &#8220;individual mandate&#8221; of the law requires citizens to purchase health insurance or be financially penalized through their income tax returns.  The XXXXXX  contend that mandate means their disposable income must be directed toward insurance premiums instead of a new car.&#8221;

I agree with their legal pleading but the purchase of a car is more important than paying for health insurance.

I have always thought there are two discussions and they get blurred.  One is health care and the other is health insurance.  What I hear is people complaining about the cost of health insurance but call it health care.  I rarely hear or read of someone complaining because they had to pay $1,500 for the ultra sound and why does it cost so much or why does my doctor charge $150 for an office visit.  Normally when they complain it is about the cost of insurance.

Health insurance pays for health care.  So I think we need to discuss the two as separate issues and Obama Care does nothing to stem health care costs.  He masterfully blurred the two discussions under one umbrella - health insurance.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 27, 2011)

Old Rocks said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > XXXXX
> ...



I'm not the one who said it. sorry your ass fails again.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> But you didn't answer the question.  How much should it cost?
> 
> I'm a 58 year old man, have a 17 year old kid and a policy that I pay $280 a month for insurance.  I do not expect to go to the Dr and pay him $20 and the insurance  pay the remainder.  I can and should pay my doctor visit the same as my parentd and the same as their parents did.
> 
> ...



I think you're right. I think if we want solutions to this people need to start thinking outside the box. First by letting go of the notion that insurance is the only de facto way to pay for health care in a free market. 

But again to have that discussion there has to be consensus first that individuals should finance their own health care.


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2011)

What is your life worth, Bern80?

Out with it, lad , tell us exactly what it's worth.

Is it worth every cent you have?

Even if it leaves you bankrupted?

My guess is that to you it is.

That, FYI, is why normal market considerations are meaningless when it comes to health care issues and policies.

When was the last time you shopped around for heart by pass surgery?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Let me ask this question - 

If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?




Have you ever hear the terms: You get what you pay for and nothing in life is free?

Nothing in life is free. _Someone_ always pays for it. It may be great for some not having to pay for any health care, but trust me, someone IS paying for it. Not them of course and that is all they care about. 

I laugh when we have strikes here and the sticking point is how much their copay will go up. Fine, please don't pay your copay and pay the entire cost of the bill. Works for me. 

So whine about copays. Boohoo they go up.  Copays are a fraction of the true cost of medical care and services.  

I am SICK of the whining about health care. Pay for it. 

Should government pay for your health care. In my opinion NO.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

editec said:


> What is your life worth, Bern80?
> 
> Out with it, lad , tell us exactly what it's worth.
> 
> ...




That's kind of my point in asking the question ed (which you didn't answer)? The fact that you didn't answer it proves my point. Cost controlling solutions, even ones that proclaim to control costs like Obamacare, are irrelevant if what people really think is that health care is too valuable to put any price tag on. That's why the question should your health care be publicly funded or privately funded by you needs to be answered first. None of you libs seem to want to fess up.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Let me ask this question -
> 
> If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?



The patient. Now answer my question.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask this question -
> ...



Ummm.....What if they can't? hence why they don't have insurance to begin with.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?



ANY private business needs to turn a profit RDD. Even if you were paying your doctor and the hosipital directly. They still need to make a profit. But that's the only way to eliminate the middle man. Even if all health care was funded through tax collection there's still a middle man; government.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Then you work something out with the hospital to pay for it over time if you have to.


Now answer my question.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Let me ask this question -
> 
> If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?



The person that went to the ER.

If they have ins, the ins pays the lion share.

If not they can set up a payment plan.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think that liberals want totally free healthcare? Is that even possible? One way or another it is going to be paid for by us. The question is how to we go about paying for it? Do we pay through insurance companies who take part of what we pay and put it in their pocket for profit? Or do we pay for it through non-profit means where you have no middle man who needs to turn a profit for shareholders?
> ...



LOL, If you eliminate the middle man that *needs* to turn a profit, you lower costs for everyone right off the bat. If government is the middle man, you still have administration costs, but you don't have the need to make multi-billion dollar profits for your shareholders.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me ask this question -
> ...



What if they are flat broke or living paycheck to paycheck and can't afford the 100k+ treatment they just racked up?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



What did I not answer? How much should healthcare cost? I don't know how to give you an exact figure but I don't think it should be free for all if that's what you're getting at.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Right. They cant. BUT they still get the care the need. And that is why costs to the rest of us, who do pay, is skyrocketing.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> ...



I laugh sometimes about this

HC ins was a benney that was offered to attrack the best employies and make them loyal.  40 years later people want to make it into some kind of right that the employer must offer or be fined.

Is comedy gold.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Exactly. This is what they are not getting. We are already paying for all these people who don't have insurance but are still being treated at ER's and hospitals who can not turn them away. The problem is we are paying for ER costs which are DRASTICALLY higher and is an extremely inefficient way of paying for their care. It would be much more efficient to subsidize these peoples insurance so they can get preventative care and treat their ailments before they get out of control and end up costing us a lot more money when they visit the ER. 
In the end we are paying for people who aren't insured no matter what, it's just a question of how do we want to do it. Efficiently or inefficiently?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I know someone that pays a hopital $50 a month for hip replacement.

Stop whining, life aint fair, and no amount of you digging and digging for excuses will give the left a pass on taking more of my independence from me.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



LOL, no one is taking your independence. LMAO!

Do you have insurance now? Would you not purchase insurance if it wasn't mandated?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Someone pays for it. Not them of course. But someone. They got what they needed and will walk on the cost. Trust me though, someone will pay for what they got for "free"


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



That's a great idea!  but it needs a catchy name.  hmmm

hmmm

How about;

Medicaid

Not catchy, but it has a certain ring to it that won't stick into the memories of some people.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Not exactly. These subsidies will allow people to purchase insurance from Private insurance companies that they get to choose. Exactly why this is the exact opposite of a government takeover.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I understand the premise but why subsidize their insurance? Why give them an insurance plan at all? That just seems like an extra step to me. If they can't pay for it, they can't pay for it. The distinction between an inability to pay the actual cost of the ER or to pay insurance premiums is irrelevent. So if we do agree to just pay for these people it would seem pointless to have them be on insurance at all and we should just accept that a portion of our tax dollars are going to be used by government to pay the ER directly for those that can't pay for it.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You see no difference between want to, and forced to.

that's a shame.


I can't remember the Russians name or exacly what he said, but it went something like this;

We don't need to push communism on America.  They will demand it and will cheer when it happens.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 Have you seen what shows up in ER's? A good deal of what shows up is NOT an emergency. And in my opinion they should be turned away. 

It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




And how many of the "mandated" people will still be provided that insurance and STILL not be paying a cent?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



ooo

I got a great name for that!

Medicare

pfft

I did csr work for a med sup company.  The government would declare people dead that weren't.  And lets not forget the ~ $84 billion in losses just from medicare that we pay for every year.

If you really want the government to help, you should find out just how poorly it runs before you ask them to do it for more people


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



But that's a completely inefficient way of paying for their costs. It ends up costing all of us WAAAAAY more for multiple reasons. 

1 - ER's are VERY expensive. You don't have a chance to shop around for costs when you are faced with going to an ER and thus their is no reason to keep costs down for them. 

2 - If someone goes to an ER it's probably because their condition has got so bad that they are being forced to finally seek treatment. This means that the condition is much worse then it was if they had it treated when the problem first arose. This means that the problem will now require more attention and in all likelihood more expensive tests, equipment and medicine. 

3 - ER's are only there to stabilize, not for long term treatment. If you have no insurance and show up at an ER for a condition that you have that has gotten out of control, they will stabilize you (for alot of $$, see above) and send you out again. This doesn't mean you are healed and are likely to end up right back in the ER again, and the cycle continues.

So to avoid all of this, if people had basic insurance coverage from the start, they could see a doctor to get the care they need before it gets out of control and they end up in the ER. This care would be much cheaper and would actually improve the overall quality of life of these people while keeping the costs down for the rest of us who like it or not are helping to pay for everyone who can't afford their own healthcare costs.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Yeah, you're right, alot of ER patients shouldn't be there, but they have nowhere else to go because they have no insurance. That's why if they had insurance from the beginning they can seek care with their personal doctor and avoid the ER all-together. That improves the quality of their life, while reducing the costs for the rest of us.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Might have to explain that a little more. If we subsidize inurance for all these people, government/us pays for it. If we just pay for their medical costs government/us pays for it. I would think paying for insurance would be the more expensive of the two options.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 So take care of people from birth to death is what you are saying to "save money" To bad so sad. Life sucks. Pay your way in life.

No, giving free insurance for life does not decrease the cost to the rest of us. It increases it. 

Why should i pocket the cost of "improving the quality of life" for anyone? That is something people need to do for themselves.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Which do you think costs more? A visit to the ER for your heart condition that you left unchecked and insufficiently treated for months or even years or a visit to your private doctor on a regular basis to get the proper medicine and care before your situation gets dire? 

Now once you answer that, remember in addition that the ER visit only stabilizes the person and doesn't aim to fix long term, which means a likely repeat visit back to the ER.

So we would be better of paying a few hundred a month to insure people took care of themselves at a much cheaper rate as opposed to still paying for their care but letting them get that care in the expensive and bare minimum ER.


----------



## editec (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > What is your life worth, Bern80?
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Huh? You said yourself earlier that someone has to pay for these peoples care. Which is true. Someone being the rest of us who do pay for insurance. This plan not only improves the quality of life for these people but it keeps our costs down because we are deciding how to pay instead of letting them decide how. 

Or are you saying that if you can't afford healthcare then you are shit out luck and should just suffer??


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
> 
> So you can make not paying illegal, or try and say we should put people on payment plans but the reality of that is neither of those options are going to lower the costs for the rest of us. You can't squeeze blood from a stone and if people don't have money, they won't pay...we will.
> 
> ...



Except you can't constitutionally do that. And you have to look at the indirect costs as well of that. What new department are we going to need to set up that arbitrarilly decides whether you can afford insurance or not? People who don't have insurance fall into many categories. Peope that don't have it because they can't afford it, people that don't have it because they are paying their medical costs some other way, and people that don't have it, can afford it, but choose not to. There just aren't that many people in that last group. Play this out for a second. The insurance mandate goes into effect. 1) How will government establish who doesn't have insurance? 2) Let's say they clear that hurdle and they see you don't have insurance. How are they going to figure WHY you don't have insurance and thus whether to tax you for not having it? They only way I can see that happening is IF you could afford insurance and IF you had to go to the doctor and IF you couldn't pay for services. That's a lot of ifs. What I'm saying is in theory the costs for all of us go down with a mandate but I'm willing to bet the beauracracy needed to enforce it is going to cost about has much as we would save. So not only can you add unconstitutional to the reasons we shouldn't have such a mandate, you can also add ultimately irrelevent.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is we have sooo many people who just can't pay no matter what fines or threats you make. Medical bankruptcy is a HUGE problem in this country. Those people literally can not pay and that cost is then passed along to everyone else who can pay. However this increased cost forces more people to drop their coverage which adds more people in to the system who show up at Hospitals and can't afford coverage, which in turn continues to raise the rates for all of us and the cycle continues to repeat itself.
> ...



Government is FAR from efficient, I known this, but to be able to determine eligibility for insurance subsidies is simply based upon your income. EVERYONE will be taxed/fined who doesn't have insurance, only difference is that the people who truly can not afford the full cost on their own will receive those subsidies. They will prove their need through their income which they are already reporting annually.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Which means on top of being unconstitutional government now gets to tell YOU how much income is enough to afford what they say you have to buy. Am I really the only way that finds that rather absurd and borderline tyrannical?

All the while this fine for not purchasing insurance is suppossedly going to help with this subsidy for people that can't afford it. So in a nutshell I'm being fined for a exercising a choice I ought to be able to make freely without penalty and my fine is going to pay for those that in some form or other made choices that prevented them from affording health care. Exercising my freedom is essentially paying for someone elses lack of planning. Solutions like that can NEVER work. Solutions that discourage personally responsibility which is exactly what the mandate does are NEVER going to make things better.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Really? After all we discussed you're reducing your argument to this? You're better than that.

So should anyone who wants subsidized health insurance be able to just ask for it and get it without question? How should standards be determined?


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 28, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



You're missing the point entirely.

Let's make it easier.

What if someone runs up a $100,000 bill, then dies in the hospital?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




My point is, these "someones" DONT want to pay for_ their _free anything. obamacare/ mandated insurance, is nothing more then giving more to those who cant pay for anything and charging everyone else for it. 

And thats about right. Pay your way. Pay for your medical. Stop relying on the government and everyone else for your "quality of life"


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD seems to have a very good bead on this issue.

An uninsured person is less likely to seek help early, hence the condition progresses and finally, fearing for his/her life, they show up in the ER.  The cost is of course much higher by this point.  Since the person couldn't afford health insurance, they can't afford the bill, period - Or maybe they die from their condition after running up the bill.  Whether they do or not, and whether you feel a moral empathy for them or not, the point is that the bill goes unpaid and gets subsidized by paying customers, or the taxpayer.  That's just the way it is, no spouting about personal accountability and whatnot is going to change that.

We should have a single payer system.  Private insurance products can still exist, even non-participant HC facilities, like they have in Canada, but everyone should have access to care.  That's the only way the overall costs will go down.  Requiring everyone to have private insurance is a start.  It's not the direction I'd have liked to see it go, but it's all the political climate would allow for.

edit: The only other 'Solution' is to deny care for non-payers, period, even if it means their death.  I've _still_ yet to hear anyone advocate that, here or anywhere else.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> So should anyone who wants subsidized health insurance be able to just ask for it and get it without question? How should standards be determined?



That's exactly my point. You're subsituting paying for health care free loaders with paying for a whole new government beauracracy that is going to need to determne all of those things.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




In my opinion, just as i am a proponent of flat tax, in your scenario....No..everyone should pay the same thing and no subsidies. 

You want to make it efficient. Charge everyone the same thing. Easy.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> RDD seems to have a very good bead on this issue.
> 
> An uninsured person is less likely to seek help early, hence the condition progresses and finally, fearing for his/her life, they show up in the ER.  The cost is of course much higher by this point.  Since the person couldn't afford health insurance, they can't afford the bill, period - Or maybe they die from their condition after running up the bill.  Whether they do or not, and whether you feel a moral empathy for them or not, the point is that the bill goes unpaid and gets subsidized by paying customers, or the taxpayer.  That's just the way it is, no spouting about personal accountability and whatnot is going to change that.
> 
> We should have a single payer system.  Private insurance products can still exist, even non-participant HC facilities, like they have in Canada, but everyone should have access to care.  That's the only way the overall costs will go down.  Requiring everyone to have private insurance is a start.  It's not the direction I'd have liked to see it go, but it's all the political climate would allow for.



Agreed, this legislation is not what I would have wanted, but don't confuse me with the people who want it repealed. I am only unhappy with this legislation in that it didn't go far enough. I think a public option would have been a great thing to help keep costs down and provide REAL choice.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?


----------



## Cuyo (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?



They won't say it, and they don't think it.  They continue to think that there must be a better way, without getting 'The Government' involved.  There isn't.  They're just so caught up in being against anything the Democrats propose that they're unwilling to see it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So should anyone who wants subsidized health insurance be able to just ask for it and get it without question? How should standards be determined?
> ...



What whole new government bureaucracy?? The IRS already can determine what everyones income is. The additional costs that the IRS would face to be able to handle this task are a drop in the bucket compared to the overall savings of this legislation for all of us.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?
> ...



And thats the funny part. The government is only involved in helping to determine who should be getting assistance and who should be paying their share. You'd think they'd be in favor of the government telling people they need to be responsible for themselves and purchase insurance and not burden the rest of us with their unnecessary high costs.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Then lower the number so that they can afford it. If that is NOTHING..then NOTHING is what everyone else should pay, right along with the ones who cant.  

If not, all you are saying is the same thing that is  already out there.

Universal insurance is nothing more then charging some people more, to give _more_ to the ones who cant pay.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Huh? 

So if it's totally free for everyone? Then doctors and nurses should work for free and drug companies should make medicine for free. For everyone? Is that what you're proposing? 

Are you a socialist?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So what happens if they can't afford whatever number it is we determine everyone should pay? You say screw em and let them die right?
> ...



That is absoultely one hundred percent false. I'm against government solutions for one reason and one reason only. It will make things WORSE not better.

Broadly, 'better' has been defined as accomplishing two goals. Making health care more affordable and getting it to those that can't pay for it. The problem is the Democrat solution has so many negatives that it outweighs accomplishing those two postives. It further absolves people of personal responsibility. Incentives to take care of yourself are lessened when the cost of doing so less directly effects you and it is undeniable that lack of personal responsibility for our own health is a MAJOR source of the high cost of health care in this country. You trample the constitution by setttng a precedent that government has the authority to make people buy things. You turn basic laws of economics on their ears by allowing someone of higher risk to buy insurance at the same price as someone with little risk which can only have the effect of raising the price for the person of little risk. You have increased demand on a system without increasing supply demanded. 

You cold not have tried to solve your initial two problems more ass backwards if possibly wanted to.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The other issue obviously is not identifying the problem. You assume things that need not be assumed. How do you solve the problem of the cost of health care for people that can't pay being shifted to others. Really the best way to do that is to make everyone buy insurance? Really?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





And THAT is my very point.  Nothing is free. Everything costs money. EVERYONE should pay and pay the same thing. Non of this bullshit that some can pay for others to have a free ride. 

It should either cost everyone the same. If, to sustain a system, it costs X from everyone within that system, then everyone needs to pay X to be in the system. 

Giving health insurance for free is socialist.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Here's an idea, You pay for them.. I'm sure you can get a list somewhere.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I already do.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 28, 2011)

No you spend all the money in the world to save them.  To accept your premises that we are all our brothers keeper, through government programs,  is based on socialist thought.  It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence.  If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life.  Yep...I could die but* it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand.*  It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life.   Why is that so hard to understand?  

It is the way of natural and very natural.  This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail.  You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work.  It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.  




RDD_1210 said:


> Ok, so I'll ask again.....for those that can't afford health care, what should they do? Suffer and die? Your whole case is severely flawed unless of course you truly are ok with people just dying if they don't have enough money. Then well, there is no point in discussing this with you any further.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> No you spend all the money in the world to save them.  To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought.  It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence.  If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life.  Yep...I could die but* it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand.*  It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life.   Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> It is the way of natural and very natural.  This entitlement situation is a rather new experiment in the history of man and it is going to fail.  You will see people in the streets because they are accustomed to living off the benefit of other people hard work.  It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.
> 
> ...




How American of you. "Don't have money, f' you & die". Thanks for letting us know what kind of person you are. Be proud of yourself.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > No you spend all the money in the world to save them.  To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought.  It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence.  If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life.  Yep...I could die but* it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand.*  It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life.   Why is that so hard to understand?
> ...



It's almost as bad an outcome as the opposite. You don't see the fundamental problem in a society where the rule is everyone is repsonsible for everyone else? That simple fact that you can't pay for something does not inherently entitle anyone to shift the burden or responsibility off of themselves and on to someone else. You agreed people need to take responsibility for themselves. What better way to do that then for everyone to be aware of the brutal consequences for not doing so?


----------



## Zander (Jan 28, 2011)

The problem with Health care is simple - we have a 3rd party payer system. The patient overuses Health services because they feel they are not paying for it- the insurance company is.   

It is human nature. If every time you went to the grocery store, someone else paid 87 percent of your bill, not only would you eat a lot more steak and a lot less hamburger - but so would your dog. And food costs would go up for everyone. 





			
				Cato institute said:
			
		

> The RAND Health Insurance Experiment, the largest study ever done of consumer health purchasing behavior, provides ample evidence that consumers can make informed cost-value decisions about their health care. Under the experiment, insurance deductibles were varied from zero to $1,000. Those with no out-of-pocket costs consumed substantially more health care than those who had to share in the cost of care. Yet, with a few exceptions, the effect on outcomes was minimal.


 This is why we have seen the costs rise. Areas of health care (like Lasik surgery and others) - not covered by insurance - have actually become cheaper!! 

To control health care costs we need to get the patient back in the system so they can economize like they do in other areas.  When consumers share in the cost of their health care purchasing decisions, they are more likely to make those decisions based on price and value. 

Personally, I use high deductible insurance policy ($4,500) coupled with an HSA (Health Savings Account). I go to the Doctor's office once a year for a comprehensive physical. The insurance policy is there for me in the event of a catastrophe. In the interim I have built up a nice nest egg in the HSA and if I never need to use it - I keep the money - not the insurance company.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > urdrwho said:
> ...



I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?



Not neccessarily the issue is that is such a gray area. Again how do we dtermine whether someone has enough money such that they should have to purchase a policy as opposed to have one subsidized bet government? I wouldn't say f you and die, but I would see 'you need to bare most or all of the financial reponsibility for your health care'. To that end I think we need to find a combination of solutions that help those who can not help themselves but at the same time encourages people to be responsible for themselves, and of course conforms with the constitution. Let me talk about that for a second.

That's where you would suggest we are doing that by mandating that people buy health care. Personally I believe saying you are 'making' someone take responsibility is an oxy moron. You aren't making someone a more responsible person simply by limiting their options. It's like locking your mischievous son in his room and saying he's more responsible now that you've contained him. You haven't changed the behavior, you've just controlled it. What is ultimately best for society is that the learn to take responsibility. That they learn what's in their best interests. And what you teach people by making them by something in order to support those that don't have the ability is that it's in their best interest, as far as paying for health care anyway, to be poor. That's the problem with government solutions. They generally punish the succesful and responsible to help the unsuccesful and irresponsible. That's what a progressive tax system does, that what SS does, that's what medicare does. That's what government involvement in health care does. It creates more dissincentive to personal rersponsibility. And yet we have the nerve to wonder why things are as bad as they are.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought we agreed earlier that everyone should pay their way but for those who truly can't, they should be provided help. Changing your mind to jump on the "F' You, DIE" bandwagon?
> ...



*Sigh* It's almost as if you read nothing I posted in this thread. If there was no mandate, would you have any other issues with this legislation? You keep going back to the mandate and I dont understand how this possibly could actually bother you, it seems like arguing just to argue. The mandate is such a tiny piece of the whole thing that truly doesn't change a thing for an overwhelming majority of people.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




 What should they do?...get a job and pay for it. Don't smoke that pack of cigarettes and drink that case of beer... and pay for it. You know the old fashioned way, cut back your "quality of life" (that we are most likely already paying for ) and pay for it.  The only exceptions i have for that are the elderly. 

And for the record, i am alright with people dying.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



There it is, a real "compassionate conservative". 

How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart. 

For the record, are you a religious person?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




No, i came from the medical end. Compassion comes in many forms. Letting people die is very compassionate.

Right, if i lose my job i will automatically EXPECT/demand the government feed, house, clothe me and pay my medical bills.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Thanks for making it known what kind of person you are. Uninformed and selfish. Be proud.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> *Sigh* It's almost as if you read nothing I posted in this thread. If there was no mandate, would you have any other issues with this legislation? You keep going back to the mandate and I dont understand how this possibly could actually bother you, it seems like arguing just to argue. The mandate is such a tiny piece of the whole thing that truly doesn't change a thing for an overwhelming majority of people.



Other problems with it would be it doesn't address costs. It doesn't address supply of resources. It creates an unfair market place for insurance. Why would I purchase insurance until I get sick if an insurance company can't penalize me for it? Those are just a few of the 'other' issues.

And the mandate is a HUGE deal. How you can not see the precedent for nearly unlimited government power, especially for a government that was meant to be limited, is beyond me. I don't get it. Is the constitution just a guide to some people and they think it just isn't important we abide by it or what? Are people missing the forest for the trees where this mandate is concerned? Am I the only one concerned with a government that have been granted the power to make its citizens buy things.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 28, 2011)

Excuse me?!!!?!?! 

America was founded and grew as a great nation based upon individualism.  It was not based on Socialist beliefs and was far from most of the European model of governing.  It was not based upon taking money from you to pay for my stuff....period

Now we do have a crop of people that feel government should be taking from others but that isn't what most American's feel.  I don't know where you went to school but we are a Republican form of government based upon Constitutional law.  

There are many people that push for the legal theft so that they can sit around and do what they enjoy such as play guitar and paint all day and still get the same benefits as the guy digging a ditch.  Sorry, I don't believe in that model.  If I did I would be sitting around playing my guitars and not dealing with the work-a-day stress.

People that aren't producing DO NOT deserve the same life style as the guy 5 feet down in that ditch, muddy boots and sweat on his brow.  



RDD_1210 said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > No you spend all the money in the world to save them.  To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought.  It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence.  If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life.  Yep...I could die but* it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand.*  It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life.   Why is that so hard to understand?
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > *Sigh* It's almost as if you read nothing I posted in this thread. If there was no mandate, would you have any other issues with this legislation? You keep going back to the mandate and I dont understand how this possibly could actually bother you, it seems like arguing just to argue. The mandate is such a tiny piece of the whole thing that truly doesn't change a thing for an overwhelming majority of people.
> ...


We addressed how this would lower costs. It could go further by introducing real competition, but the public option was killed. But we talked about how costs are addressed. And your grand plan to go without insurance until you need it is a non-issue since you will only be able to sign up for insurance during open enrollment periods thus no one can game the system. So any actual problems that you have or are you just arguing now to argue? 



> And the mandate is a HUGE deal. How you can not see the precedent for nearly unlimited government power, especially for a government that was meant to be limited, is beyond me. I don't get it. Is the constitution just a guide to some people and they think it just isn't important we abide by it or what? Are people missing the forest for the trees where this mandate is concerned? Am I the only one concerned with a government that have been granted the power to make its citizens buy things.



How does the mandate give government more power? Does the government have power over the auto industry because people are required to have auto insurance to be able to drive? Again, you're making a issue out of something that is not an issue. Would you not buy insurance if you were given the option? Would you be ok with me not buying insurance and then going to the ER so you can pay for my healthcare costs?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> Excuse me?!!!?!?!
> 
> America was founded and grew as a great nation based upon individualism.  It was not based on Socialist beliefs and was far from most of the European model of governing.  It was not based upon taking money from you to pay for my stuff....period
> 
> ...



Actually this country was found as "*WE* the people.." Not "I, the person". People that are not "producing" don't deserve the same life _style_ as those who do, but they do deserve life.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > Excuse me?!!!?!?!
> ...




Life is not medical insurance. 

I agree that they deserve life and to live.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > urdrwho said:
> ...



Medical insurance is how you get healthcare in this country...unfortunately.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




you can have life.

Without health care or insurance.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Not if you get sick, which everyone eventually does. Next ridiculous argument?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...





 I know everyone gets sick. It is still life.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Ok, are we done? You're obviously just trying to be difficult. One minute you're ok with everyone dying, then you are all for life. You make no sense and I don't care about trying to understand you anymore. I'm off, have a good weekend.


----------



## Intense (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I see you as the one caught up in emotion, you abandoned reason way back.We Each have the Right to Pursue Happiness. There are few guarantees in life friend. Turn on the news right now if you doubt that. Part of our security is based on who we are and what we do as Individual Beings, Each of us , key word "Each". I am not your property. If I find myself unprepared to face the day because of a burden you placed on me, how is that helpful to Society? There is no substitute for Skill. Entitlement is a scam, a perversion, nothing more. The Parasite has outgrown It's host. Open up your eyes.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



How thick are you?

Everyone is entitled to their lives. To do with as they see fit. To live as they choose. That is life. 

Life is _not_ guarantee to entitlements or handouts. It is not a guarantee to health care or insurance. It is not a guarantee to being free from pain, illness and death. It is not a guarantee that the government is going to stop your pain, heal your sickness and save you from death. 

Your life is yours, not the governments. 


If you want health care pay for it.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> We addressed how this would lower costs. It could go further by introducing real competition, but the public option was killed. But we talked about how costs are addressed. And your grand plan to go without insurance until you need it is a non-issue since you will only be able to sign up for insurance during open enrollment periods thus no one can game the system. So any actual problems that you have or are you just arguing now to argue?



Sorry RDD, but what Obamacare plans to do defies economic concepts that tell
 us under what conditions costs fall. They don't fall when options become more limited for example. 




RDD_1210 said:


> How does the mandate give government more power? Does the government have power over the auto industry because people are required to have auto insurance to be able to drive? Again, you're making a issue out of something that is not an issue. Would you not buy insurance if you were given the option? Would you be ok with me not buying insurance and then going to the ER so you can pay for my healthcare costs?


o
Stop being so damn close minded. The options are not all of us buy health insurance your I pay or health care bills. How does it give government more power? Are you fucking serious? The federal government, according to the constitution, does not have the authority to make people buy things. Now it would. How much clearer does that need to made for you. What if the issue was not healthcare. What if the issue was the environment and it was mandated by government that everyone had to buy a Prius? That okay with you too?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> ...


Ban 3rd party payee systems.  Most of the problems will evaporate in a few short years because nobody in their right mind will pay 20 bucks for an aspirin, or 20k for an MRI.  These companies got fat and bloated because there was very little oversight or care when people thought they could get health care 'for free' if their employer or government provided it.  

For the rest of the problems, make malpractice suits a 'loser pays' (should do this for all civil cases anyway) and that will drop malpractice insurance into the dirt AND end ambulance chasers.  Two goods accomplished.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Why wait to lose your job?  Quit.  Why achieve when you are entitled to the fruits of other's labor?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Another person who thinks we aren't already paying for everyones health care.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > We addressed how this would lower costs. It could go further by introducing real competition, but the public option was killed. But we talked about how costs are addressed. And your grand plan to go without insurance until you need it is a non-issue since you will only be able to sign up for insurance during open enrollment periods thus no one can game the system. So any actual problems that you have or are you just arguing now to argue?
> ...



I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



You're cool with people dying just because they lack health insurance, so I'm done with you.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


And you infer this how?



> You're cool with people dying just because they lack health insurance,  so I'm done with you.



When's the last time you stepped over the body of someone who died of "lack of health insurance".  How fucking stupid is THAT statement?

The needs of one does not grant them the right to enslave another.  Just because you're sick does not mean a doctor must treat you for nothing.  Your right to healthcare includes only what you can personally provide without tools or training.  After that, it's a matter of trade.

We don't have a healthcare crisis in this nation, we have a Deadbeat Crisis.  People who want something for nothing.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Ok, you're right.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



 Its not just that they want something for nothing of which they are already getting....they want more. 

Deadbeat Crisis.... true that.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 28, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.



Okay show where in the constitution where government is granted the authority to make people buy things.

You haven't proved shit. All you've shown is a lack of understanding of basic economic principles and a narrow minded disregard for liberty when you think it suits you. 

My arguments are backed by basic economic principles. Yours are backed by unfounded fear of anything free market based. You can not increase demand on a product or service and expect access to it to improve. That's what this bill does. You can not expect to reduce the cost of premiums by giving the insurance company more customers and further restricting what and how they have to provide their product. Explain to me how this bill can possibly give people more options by further restricting how insurance companies can provide their product.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.
> ...



The MAJOR point his is making is that it will give more options to those who have no options now. It will provide for free something they do not currently have now. Health care insurance.

They will be getting something of great value... for nothing. 

And in turn we will be paying more for _their_ entitlements and getting less for what we ourselves ARE paying for. 

So if i was some bum, this is a sweet deal.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 28, 2011)

So back to the OP

_How much should health care cost?_

You should pay health care. Be that private or public. 


_
Should it cost anything?_

If there is on person getting obamacare for free..then EVERYONE should be provided obamacare for free. If that is not a system that is sustainable, free health care for ALL, then it must cost something and everyone must pay. And that something should be a equal payment for all. If everyone is going to get the same care, everyone should shoulder the same payment.


----------



## Bones (Jan 29, 2011)

The United States spends more on health care than any other nation on earth, yet its citizens left and right are going bankrupt due to the disgustingly high costs of both medical care and insurance.

Something's seriously fucked up here.  Seriously, seriously fucked up.


----------



## Sarah G (Jan 29, 2011)

Something is very wrong when only the very rich or the very poor have no worries about healthcare.  It's almost as if the middle class is being targeted by big insurance..  

Wish those who have the power to change this unfairness would put forth the effort one of these days.


----------



## Bones (Jan 29, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Something is very wrong when only the very rich or the very poor have no worries about healthcare.  It's almost as if the middle class is being targeted by big insurance..
> 
> Wish those who have the power to change this unfairness would put forth the effort one of these days.


As they say.

Wish in one hand, shit in the other.  See which fills up quickest.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Independence? Like the Declaration of?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men* are created equal, that they *are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."*

When you can explain how liberty, happiness or anything else is possible without life and how life is possible without your health, I will listen to your argument that health care is a privilege.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?



My question to you...do you believe in reincarnation? 

Because the only way a market based health care system works is if you can refuse to do business with XYZ insurance in the next life.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

Bones said:


> The United States spends more on health care than any other nation on earth, yet its citizens left and right are going bankrupt due to the disgustingly high costs of both medical care and insurance.
> 
> Something's seriously fucked up here.  Seriously, seriously fucked up.


Absolutely correct.  But if you look at other state healthcare system you see the same pattern.  Low quality, difficult access (rationing), zero/low innovation, back breaking budgetary problems.

Britain is now toying with privatizing part if not all their healthcare system, but can't figure out how so far because it's so ingrained in their national psyche.  Canada's starting to have problems where they are shutting down operating rooms towards the end of the budgetary year, so don't get sick or you will have to wait!

Socialized/government healthcare is a failed concept.  It's major success is causing budgets to become bloated and unwieldy because no one feels the direct impact of unnecessary cost increases, bureaucratic waste and incompetence and over-use by the public.  All this happens in a system where everyone thinks "It's not my money".  It's amplified by a litigious society that sues for fun and profit over the smallest perceived, not real harm.  Lastly, throw into this an attitude of entitlement based on fear driven by need and you have a death sentence for any government that does not have the tumerity to make the hard choices and put the costs back on their citizenry with a minimum of bureaucratic interference.  

Think of this.  If you had to pay, 100% for all your healthcare costs, you would be shopping around for the cheapest provider.  No more 20 buck aspirins.  No more $5000 a night hospital stays.   No more 10,000 MRI scans.  No.  You would find the cheapest purveyor of these medical needs.  You'd join memberships to clinics to cover your basic needs in a primitive form of health insurance where you'd get x amount of regular health maintenance care.  For the really big needs like surgery or very 'modern' treatments, then you would have been paying into some form of catastrophic insurance.  You don't make a claim on your fire insurance if you burnt a table top with a pot or candle for some reason, or make a claim on your auto insurance because you had an oil change.  This should be the attitude for health insurance too.  A broken arm.  A heart bypass.  Cancer treatment.  Pregnancy and birth.  That is what health insurance is for.  

We as a nation need to get our fiscal priorities in order or we WILL suffer a time where no health care is available to anyone because the government, long since bankrupt will be unable to pay for it as well.  

Lastly, why should healthcare cost anyone anything?  Simple.  Because it's not a right.  It's a marketable trade and commodity.  The same way you demand to be paid for your work, the doctors deserve to be paid as well.  If you cannot heal yourself without training or medicine or equipment, you must trade for the services of another to heal you.  To claim that another person must provide for you because of your need without receiving fair value in the trade in return, this is enslavement or theft.  You are taking from them their skills, resources, time and work without giving something of value in return.  If you think the costs are overpriced, then find another provider.  Your need does not dictate any special status.  We all need electricity, yet you must pay the bill.  You need water, but I don't see many rain barrels around anymore.  You need food, but the store is not handing it out for free.  The doctor's office is the same.  We have just insulated it from the understanding that it is a necessary trade-able commodity for so long we have forgotten there is no difference.

This is why we have a Deadbeat Crisis in this nation.  Not a Health Care Crisis.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> ...


Tardtard, that's utter horseshit and intellectually bankrupt.  

I see you forgot how it feels to get pwned and have come back.

It's clear you lack the courage to voice your true beliefs that you believe health care should be free and doctors should be slaves to the state.

Typical.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


You are given the right to life.  It's quality is not guaranteed in the constitution and is up to you to make the most of your opportunity.  So wrong again.  Time to get back to your private little utopia between your ears.

Thank you for playing, tardtard.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Pwned? Really Big FIZZZZZZZZ?

You are more that welcome to defend conservatism, but I have yet to meet anyone who can do it without diminishing others or requiring some group of human beings to evaporate. It is a negative form of thought that is incompatible with a free and open society. It is anti-democratic in nature and builds nothing, it can only tear things down. The last 30 years are a shining example of conservatism.

Conservatism throughout human history has always created a aristocracy, plutocracy, or some form of oppressive society where there is a ruling class or hierarchy. Today's aristocrats and hierarchy are the CEO's, corporations, free marketeers, and the business elite. Conservatives will defend to the death McDonalds right to slowly poison our children, but they never defend our children's health and well being.

I've lived to see the total failure of two revolutions of extreme ideology. The Bolshevik revolution and the Reagan revolution. Unfettered communism and unfettered capitalism creates the same end...failure.

Conservatism has no investment in human capital. It believes everyone is basically evil, so it treats people accordingly and it always creates a fear of 'others', some group of people that must be excluded or ostracized. Liberalism is faith in human beings and a trust that the human spirit can solve all man-made problems. Liberalism is a belief that everyone is basically good, all they need a fair opportunity to succeed.

So you are more than welcome to defend conservatism, but you don't get to decide the debate outcome.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Ahhhh this is why you're a tard among tards.

Marvelous!

Equating the Bolshevik revolution that killed tens of thousands to the Reagan Revolution that killed... no one?  Hmmmmm  I smell poo scented logic.

You're so steeped in liberal philosophical poison you actually believe McDonalds is poisoning children???

Yes, tardtard... you earned that title.  Shine on you crazyassed zircon.


----------



## Bfgrn (Jan 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Just how bad is McDonald's food?

Morgan Spurlock sought to find out in his 2004 documentary _Super Size Me_. In his film, I was interviewed and spoke about the role McDonald's food is playing in our epidemic of obesity and diabetes.

For 30 days, Spurlock ate only McDonald's food. All of us involved in the film, including Spurlock's doctors, were shocked at the amount that his health deteriorated in such a short time. Before the 30 days started, we each predicted what changes we expected to see in his weight, cholesterol levels, liver enzymes and other biomarkers, but every one of us substantially underestimated how severely his health would be jeopardized. It turned out that in the 30 days, the then 32-year-old man gained 25 pounds, his cholesterol levels rose dangerously as did fatty accumulations in his liver, and he experienced mood swings, depression, heart palpitations and sexual dysfunction.

The standard American diet -- in which 62 percent of calories come from processed foods, 25 percent from animal products and only 5 percent from fruits and vegetables -- is nothing less than a health travesty. Our fast-food culture has produced a population with widespread chronic illness and is a primary reason that health care costs are taking a devastating toll on just about everyone.

The annual health insurance premiums paid by the average American family now exceed the gross yearly income of a full-time minimum wage worker. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. files for bankruptcy due to the costs of treating a health problem. Starbucks spends more on the health insurance of its workers than it does on coffee.

Medical care costs in the U.S. have not always been this excessive. This year, we will spend more than $2.5 trillion on medical care. But in 1950, five years before Ray Kroc opened the first franchised McDonald's restaurant, Americans only spent $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today's dollars). Even after adjusting for inflation, *we now spend as much on health care every 10 days as we did in the entire year of 1950.
*
Has this enormous increase in spending made us healthier? Earlier this year, when the World Health Organization assessed the overall health outcomes of different nations, it placed 36 other nations ahead of the United States.

Today, we have an epidemic of largely preventable diseases. To these illnesses, Americans are losing not only their health but also their life savings. Meanwhile, the evidence keeps growing that the path to improved health lies in eating more vegetables, fruits, whole grains and legumes, and eating far less processed foods, sugars and animal products.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

I've read Fast Food Nation.  Piece of advocacy muckraking I'd barely dignify as journalism.

Take your dietary pomposity somewhere else.  I've never known of a single case where the cause of death was "Fast Food".  Nor has there ever been a proven case of cancer or disease caused conclusively by fast food.

Lots of allegations and biased 'research', but no real proof.

But, this is why you're tardtard.  Intellectual bankruptcy at it's most frantic.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 29, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Wait . . . you mean if someone without insurance were to go to the doctor (instead of the ER) because they had the flu, they couldn't just pay the doctor directly the cost of the visit?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 29, 2011)

I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such.  If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up.  Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket.  Wouldn't that reduce costs?  

Have the rates of plastic surgery gone out of control?  That's rarely covered by insurance and people pay out of pocket.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 29, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




And there is the bottom line. The do not want to pay.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 29, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such.  If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up.  Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket.  Wouldn't that reduce costs?
> 
> Have the rates of plastic surgery gone out of control?  That's rarely covered by insurance and people pay out of pocket.



That is where the unions go bat shit crazy!

What?? you want us to pay a higher co pay? You mean i will have to pay $35 dollars for a Dr. visit? 

What?? My deductible is going to go up to? 


And even with a higher deductible and a larger copay...its still not near what you would be paying if you footed the entire bill.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Again.  That's why it's a Deadbeat Crisis.

I should copywrite that phrase.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 29, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > I've never understood why health insurance is set up to pay for the small stuff, like doctor's visits or lower cost tests and such.  If my car insurance covered oil changes, tire rotations, and yearly inspections the cost of my premium would go way up.  Why don't they change how insurance is structured so that the smaller stuff isn't covered and has to be paid for out of pocket.  Wouldn't that reduce costs?
> ...



No, no 'copay'.  Right now a doctor's visit in my area is $65.  If insurance didn't cover that at all and people paid it out-of-pocket, doctors would have to compete with other doctors and their fees would come down.

I can shop around for my car insurance and with all plans, the lower the deductible the higher the premium and visa versa.  Why isn't health insurance set up similarly?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jan 29, 2011)

The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.  Do you know what a doctor charges for an office visit. a blood panel, an x ray, an EKG, an appendectomy etc?

The answer in all cases is "No" for the vast majority of people.

How can market forces be applied to put pressure on providers to lower prices when no one knows what anything actually costs?

I read this recently

Worried About Cholesterol? Order Your Own Tests - WSJ.com and it made a lot of sense to me.

I could skip paying for a doctors office visit (however much that costs) and just pay for a blood panel.  it's easy enough to tell if the results warrant a call to a doctor or if everything is OK.

Just think if we could shop around for other services in a more a la carte fashion we could very well see a huge drop in prices for medical care and people would have to take a more active and responsible role in their own lives.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 29, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



 That is rather what i was saying. It is something that the unions fight tooth and nail when it comes up in contracts. 

So how does shopping around work into obamacare?  Oh that right...it doesn't.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

> The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one  knows what anything costs.



DING!  This is a massive point.  When I had to get some medical tests they made me call an unlisted number, with my 'case ID' before anyone would tell me prices.

They should be forced to have public pricing for every service so people can do comparison shopping.  This would break the back of a LOT of hidden costs, fees and bloat.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?


It seems like you have a poor understanding of what is actually desired for healthcare.



syrenn said:


> It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.


Requiring every upcoming doctor in the country to work for free is not an option.



syrenn said:


> No, giving free insurance for life does not decrease the cost to the rest of us. It increases it.  [/COLOR]


That's not necessarily true.  Who do you think pays for the indigent when they don't?  You think hospitals and doctors just eat the cost?  Lose money?  It's foolish.  No, they just pass on the cost to you.  This is known as price discrimination, a well established and popular economic concept in America.  Do you really think movie theaters just discount prices for seniors out of the kindness of their hearts?  Do you think supermarket coupons are produced for your benefit?  Do you REALLY think that hospitals around the country can care for the poor without charging you more?

Think about that one.  You're already paying for them if you have insurance.



> So we would be better of paying a few hundred a month to insure people took care of themselves at a much cheaper rate as opposed to still paying for their care but letting them get that care in the expensive and bare minimum ER.


To add to that good point: we tend to hold zero value to human lives in these scenarios.  So yes, it would be drastically more expensive in the ER, but think about how much more horrible a life that person will have, and how it might even be shortened because of it!



Bern80 said:


> So in a nutshell I'm being fined for a exercising a choice I ought to be able to make freely without penalty and my fine is going to pay for those that in some form or other made choices that prevented them from affording health care.


That's just it: you don't have a choice.  Not when it matters.  If you're unconscious and bleeding in the street, you have ZERO choice at that moment to make medical decisions.  Even if you were awake, is that really the time you want to start comparing the relative rates of local ambulance companies, and googling the reputation of the trauma surgeons at each hospital?  You have no choice, and doctors do not need your choice or even CONSENT in the matter to treat you.  

So sure, robbing rights is a bad thing, but we're not talking about which store you want to shop at for a new sweater.  We're talking about moment by moment decision making that determines life or death, where the luxury of choice is not available. Or did you think the majority of hospital patients are there electively?


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

RDD -----  do you ever have any financial thoughts on the matter other than what you've heard?   In my life I have gone without health insurance and had to pay for things out of my pocket.  You aren't going to die without health insurance.  There are many things that will or can kill you but not having health insurance isn't one of them.  In this country you show up at the hospital and they will treat you.

Your points are straight off of the Huffington Post or the Daily Koz.  You have no financial thought at all and just like an arrested adolescent, you just want something and don't care about cost.  Sadly this life on earth has and always will resolve around paying for something.  Utopia on this earth just won't happen.

Yes it does say we the people and general welfare etc. but you left out the part of "blessings of Liberty to ourselves and Posterity."  What part of posterity are you leaving when you have a government that is bankrupt.  The founders were farmers and knew about commerce.  They were not part of a tribal system with a community food pot.  The WE is the people and not the government.

Stop talking insurance and give me an example of what you would like to see to lower health care.  Do you want to see doctors and nurses earn less;  maybe tort reform; maybe do away with semi-private rooms?  What are some of your ideas?  

RDD would you like the German model of a two tiered system?  From Deutsche Welle  "Anecdotal evidence abounds about difference in service between those insured under private health care plans in Germany and those with the state system. The newspaper Bild conducted a test of 100 doctor's offices around Germany, calling each to set up appointments. 

"Private patients are preferred, publicly insured patients are brazenly turned away, just gotten rid of," Heinz Windisch, president of VKVD, an interest group for both privately and publicly insured individuals, told the newspaper.

All this has led to accusations that patients in the public system are second-class citizens, having to wait months for non-emergency doctor's appointments or procedures and paying ever more out of their own pockets as the list of covered treatments and medicines shrinks, all the while watching as their monthly health insurance contributions continue to rise. 

People who earn less than 46,800 euros ($54,850) per year are obligated to enroll in one of Germany's public health plans. Their contributions are determined by their income and range from 12.7 to 15.5 percent, half of which their employer pays.

In addition, patients must pay a 10 euro quarterly office fee, five to 10 euros for medicines, pay for shared rooms in hospitals and generally cover 50 percent of the cost of dental prostheses.

Private patients, on the other hand, generally have much more choice regarding doctors, have long lists of services covered, are not required to pay a quarterly office fee, and can receive medicines or eyeglasses without additional charges.

"Those who pay more in Germany get better service," said Kai A. Konrad, a professor specializing in health system economics at the Institute of Public Finance and Social Policy at Berlin's Free University. "They are like two different products." "

In Japan they have a problem with " More than 14,000 emergency patients were rejected from hospitals three or more times in 2007. The record is a woman in her 70s who was having trouble breathing. She was denied entry by 49 hospitals. One pregnant woman died in 2006 from a brain hemorrhage during childbirth because she was rejected by 19 hospitals."

In Taiwan it is normal to give a doctor money under the table to move up in the que.

Personally from your writing you are living in a dream world and haven't done much research. You only know what you have been told.  You crave a USA system where all get the same health care but if you research, many government public options have a two tiered system.

I've debated this topic and did my research.  Is the USA system perfect?  No but neither is any other world system.  The main problem with all of the schemes is that the patient is shielded from the true cost of health care.  

I'm waiting for you to drop some religious card about what would Jesus do.  But hey, Jesus needed money and one of his disciples was the treasure of the group.  So even that group knew you needed money to live in this world, to help people.   John 13:29.  I don't think Jesus said, go ask rome to give you money to buy for the feast.

Time for you to leave the Matrix and enter the real world.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Universal insurance is nothing more then charging some people more, to give _more_ to the ones who cant pay.


Actually that's exactly what our current system is.  You pay more for insurance and healthcare because others aren't paying, regardless of whether they can't, or just don't want to.  You're scared of something that's already happening, but don't understand the economic concept.



syrenn said:


> Giving health insurance for free is socialist.


Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools.  It's quite immature to boil down any necessary shared commodity as this nation-changing concept of socialism.  Healthcare, much like all the other things are just mentioned, is a necessary social commodity to allow for a productive society.  There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.



urdrwho said:


> It has thrown nature all out of balance and one thing Darwin was correct about was survival of the fittest.


Lucky for us we have established civilization so that our young are not picked off by wild hyenas at every opportunity.  If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all?  Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording health knowledge on their families exclusively?  The concept is absurd. 



urdrwho said:


> People that aren't producing DO NOT deserve the same life style as the guy 5 feet down in that ditch, muddy boots and sweat on his brow.


You think the guy in the city slums is getting the same healthcare as a millionaire in a yuppy upper class town?  That's delusional.



Skull Pilot said:


> The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.


EXACTLY right.  The current healthcare system setup has robbed America of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and competition.


----------



## Sallow (Jan 29, 2011)

Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.

And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

Twenty five years ago I wrote a paper on this matter.  Union contract bartering is what started the entire mess of divesting people from the true cost.  During each contract negotiation the UAW bartered for less and less out of pocket health care costs.  That idea floated into the regular work place and we are now at a place in time that people don't even know what their own doctor charges. 

Most companies that have over 500 employees are either fully or partially self insured.  You may have a blue shield card but they are the ones that administer the claims, the network and pay above the shock claims.  So when you have large employers complain about health costs, they mean HEALTH COSTS.  Since those employers are the insurer they know the difference between insurance costs and health care.

I pay my doctor and know what he charges.  When he prescribes a high cost antibiotic, I'll call from the pharmacy.  Hey doc isn't there anything that will do the same job?  100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price.  Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.



syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jan 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?



Both.  
All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for emergency treatment.  Employers should not be required to contribute to this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).

The Federal Government and Each willing State Government should provide the money to build and maintain brick and mortar regional health centers; centers staffed by either government employees or private contractors - TBD by each state.

Preventative services should include free conraceptives for all woman (and sexually active girls) pre-natal and post-natal care, and well baby checks for the first two years of life; regualar and free physical educations at appropriate intervals for all children up to age 18, including treatment for chronic disease; and, education in concert with the schoools on the dangers of STD's, Drug, alcohol and tobacco use/abuse and the benefits of proper nutrition and exercise.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

Using your theory of health people,  why was America the most productive country in the world?  We didn't have the NHS like the UK.  The UK with their NHS should have been the big producer, the IBM, the Apple the Microsoft, etc..

Firehouses are not always free nor are they owned by the governments.  In many areas they are volunteer fire departments.  Why didn't you mention the army or navy.  You want to muddy the waters you ole D Koz boy with this idea that protection against a robber is the same as a health insurance policy.  Sorry I don't bite on that worm because it is not the same.  

If we take your assumption of community, why own anything, or do anything on our won, just let the community provide for it?  Since everything is community, why mow my lawn...let the community do it.  Why upgrade the dangerous wiring in that apartment, let the community do it.  Hey in the 70's I lived in a commune and it was really cool...except for the lazy people.  I even lived in a tee pee.  Yep those were the days of social experiment and guess what, in the end it sucked.  The worst people in the group were the devout communists.  For some odd reason they felt they were above hard physical work.

The "it takes a village" speech sounds fine except to people who tried the village communal life.  It is a dream and propaganda.

You want the community and government health care, fine.  Just leave me out of it.  Since Medicare is the biggest denier of health claims among all insurance companies, you can just have it.

For me I will pay my doc, my scripts and use my insurance for the big claims.  



syrenn said:


> Giving health insurance for free is socialist.


Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and street lights and the public schools.  It's quite immature to boil down any necessary shared commodity as this nation-changing concept of socialism.  Healthcare, much like all the other things are just mentioned, is a necessary social commodity to allow for a productive society.  There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more productive people.


----------



## Valerie (Jan 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one  knows what anything costs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That's the amazing thing, when you really think about it...

INSURANCE...supposedly to insure against _potential _health care cost.........?





At what point does that "insurance" become greater than ACTUAL COST............?


Why should the government require citizens to pay such a cost, as if citizens could not still otherwise be held responsible for ACTUAL health care costs incurred...?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> 100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price.  Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.


Well no, that's not actually true. 100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects.  Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians. 



urdrwho said:


> Using your theory of health people,  why was America the most productive country in the world?  We didn't have the NHS like the UK.  The UK with their NHS should have been the big producer, the IBM, the Apple the Microsoft, etc..


This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept.  Please try to stay with me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts, and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just made.  This should be common sense.  Sick people call out to work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any nation with healthcare by default is more productive.  It's saying that any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this? 



urdrwho said:


> Firehouses are not always free nor are they owned by the governments.  In many areas they are volunteer fire departments.  Why didn't you mention the army or navy.  You want to muddy the waters you ole D Koz boy with this idea that protection against a robber is the same as a health insurance policy.  Sorry I don't bite on that worm because it is not the same.


That's great that you can reference non-government entities, but it's not what we're actually discussing.  You claim one shared commodity is somehow different than another, yet don't actually support it.  Why do you think protection against being robbed is different than protection against being killed, or driving on shared roads for that matter? Do certain people in this country not mind being robbed or getting sick?  You tell me why they aren't the same with regard to necessary shared commodities.



urdrwho said:


> If we take your assumption of community, why own anything, or do anything on our won, just let the community provide for it?  Since everything is community, why mow my lawn...let the community do it.  Why upgrade the dangerous wiring in that apartment, let the community do it.


As I mentioned earlier, it's incredibly immature to be unable to differentiate between necessary shared commodities, and all commodities.  We're not talking about the community purchasing an HDTV for you and everyone else.  This is not a necessity for the community.  Streets are.  Public schools are.  TVs are not.  Getting your lawn mowed is not. 

Let me know if you're still having trouble understanding the difference, or if you desire to continue taking everything to slipper slope extremes.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

> Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and  street lights and the public schools.



Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better.



> There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more  productive people.



All for the collective, eh?  Keep the body politik healthy.  Works great till you're the one denied healthcare because some beancounter has decided you're obsolete and not worth the society's dollars to keep healthy, because they're better spent elsewhere.  Then the panic begins for you.

It is up to the individual, not the state, to keep themselves productive.



> Lucky for us we have established civilization so that our young are not  picked off by wild hyenas at every opportunity.



Really?  And all those embryos we get while still in the womb?  Did they have rights to healthcare too?



> If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all?   Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording  health knowledge on their families exclusively?  The concept is absurd.



Strawman.  It's all or nothing, eh?  Before the government started interfering with wage and price controls in the 1930's forcing businesses to shoulder healthcare costs because they were forbidden to increase wages, paying for healthcare was much more reasonable.  It's always been expensive, but it was at least possible to afford with catastrophic health insurance.  This is no longer health insurance we're talking about.  We've had the discussion moved to be that over deserving free whole life care.  This is impossible to sustain and anyone not an economic ignoramus can see it.



> EXACTLY right.  The current healthcare system setup has robbed America  of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and  competition.



Soooo... now you WANT free markets?  Gonna give yourself whiplash changing directions like that.  Or is this an example of doublethink in action?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.
> 
> And yeah..I said "young". We all gotta die sometime.





> All employed in the United States should pay a tax which directly funds  universal preventative healthcare, and an actual and immediate need for  emergency treatment.  Employers should not be required to contribute to  this fund, other than their own personal obligations as an  employee/owner (as should all self employed individuals).



And what should that tax be?  10%?  20?  40?  80?  When a commodity like health care is free, it will be overused, and the access will drop.  The only way then to control costs is rationing.  Back to your death panels deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't and when and what is the best value for the government healthcare dollar.

Congratulations.  You're no longer a citizen, you're cattle, and Farmer Sam will keep you around till you are of no more use to him.  Then off to the glue factory.

That is what you are really advocating but don't want to admit is the truth of it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

> This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept.  Please try to stay with  me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts,  and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just  made.  This should be common sense.  Sick people call out to work more,  cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any  nation with healthcare by default is more productive.  It's saying that  any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their  health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this?



You're trying to blend incompatible arguments.  You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'.  Nice has no cash value.  We are talking about costs, not ethical or moral desires for a perfect world here.  If you want to debate social engineering to create a utopia, start a thread.  Otherwise, deal with the topic at hand and quit trying to add invalid aspects to the discussion.

Life's a bitch, then you die, then they throw dirt in your face, then the worms eat you.  Be grateful it happens in that order.

And now, you can do a pussy negrep as you always do when you can't stick to the discussion or someone disagrees with you.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

Now it is clear, you just like to argue.  It doesn't matter if you have your head up your you-know-where, you'll just argue for the hell of it.  The statement below shows you have no idea what you are talking about.  One hundred percent of the time there is no generic.   You just showed me I am wasting my time discussing with an idiot!  Many more of the new drugs have black box warnings, they have not had the years of experience.  

A generic of the drug is chemically identical to the active ingredient of the corresponding branded medication.

"FDA's Office of Generic Drugs:

    A generic drug is identical, or bioequivalent to a brand name drug in dosage form, safety, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use. Although generic drugs are chemically identical to their branded counterparts, they are typically sold at substantial discounts from the branded price.According to the Congressional Budget Office, generic drugs save consumers an estimated $8 to $10 billion a year at retail pharmacies. Even more billions are saved when hospitals use generics.
"

Now this is the last time I will respond to any of your posts.  I enjoy debating but get really tired when an someone tries to debate things they know nothing about and argue just to argue.  I'm too old to waste time arguing with people that make pointless observations.  Keep trolling and maybe you'll find someone else to play games with but I left the sand box behind me a long, long time ago.

Have a good life.



SmarterThanHick said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > 100% of the time there is another generic that will do the job and at 1/4 of the price.  Doctors are always prescribing the latest meds and a lot of people have no idea of the real cost.
> ...


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

Exactly and it is the reason I will no longer debate with people that can't understand the economics in life.  They are in a dream world with Utopian thoughts but it isn't real life.  SO they make obtuse arguments about the good of society and fireman and policeman, etc.  They muddy the water with such inane debating ideas. 

They always sound like the weak people that want to have the same stuff that the strong productive have in a society.  We have grown a rather large group of people that whine about life and point to what other people have as though they to deserve the bigger house.

My neighbor two doors away has a big, big house, elevator and all in it.  He travels the world but when he works, he works all the time.  I don't care to work as much therefore I don't have as much.  So what, why should I care what he has...I don't.  

There are a lot of people that do care what their neighbor owns.  They want the same but aren't willing to sacrifice for it.  It is a society of people with a false sense of entitlement.  It is also the part of the welfare mentality that is rampant in the USA and a lot of western society.  It is why we are becoming the lower economic power and China is becoming the strong economic power.  People got addicted to cheaper goods and didn't look at the long term event.  Now we are weak and that isn't going to change.  The USA and a lot of the western world are in the waning days and China, India, Hong Kong and Asia are the growing economies. 

What the USA is left with are people that want to debate how moral it is for everyone to have food, housing, health care, etc. but don't want to talk about the economics of it.  They are in a dream land.   They are the people that played childhood games where they didn't keep score.  They wanted their world to be nice and don't like the real world.

So yep..........I agree with you.  Economics don't care about nice. 

[/quote]

You're trying to blend incompatible arguments.  You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'.  Nice has no cash value.  We are talking about costs, not ethical or moral desires for a perfect world here.  If you want to debate social engineering to create a utopia, start a thread.  Otherwise, deal with the topic at hand and quit trying to add invalid aspects to the discussion.

Life's a bitch, then you die, then they throw dirt in your face, then the worms eat you.  Be grateful it happens in that order.

And now, you can do a pussy negrep as you always do when you can't stick to the discussion or someone disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 29, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > I've shown repeatedly you have no basis for your opposition to health care reform that was passed. Everything you bring up, I show where you went wrong in your thinking. So now you're left with just calling it unconstitutional, which also isn't true. But you obviously don't care, you just want to hate this bill no matter what. Even though you've yet to show me anything in the way of any shape of logic or reason. Instead you cry about some mythical freedoms being lost.
> ...



Show me anywhere that I've posted anything that was wrong. Seriously. Did you not understand the value of subsidizing insurance versus paying for peoples healthcare through the ER? What did I specifically say that you didn't understand or think was incorrect? *Specifically*. Because I never heard you disagree with my explanations.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 29, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



and yet you claimed you proved me wrong....... and still refuse to show how exactly the insurance mandate is constitutional.

As far as subsidizing insurance I think you fail to see the big picture and how it would play out in reality. How will it be decided who gets subsidized insurance? How much of their premiums will be subsidized? What is government going to do with the people that can't afford insurance? So they can't afford the least expensive private plan out there...is some government beauracrat gonna try to figure out what they can afford then subsidize the rest? I doubt it. My guess is their entire premium would have to be subsidized. That being the case what will an individuals options be for these plans that government will be paying for? To be fair I would have to guess they would only have the option of one plan. Otherwise why wouldn't everyone just pick the best plan they could? They're not paying for it after all. THAT is why I originally asked what the point is of subsidizing insurance plans. Because the plans for those that can't pay will have to be the same for everyone. You might as well jsut have a national UHC system that covers the basics for everyone at that point.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Should health care "cost" something? Yeah. It should be a collective cost. No young person should have to die for want of health care.
> ...


I for one would not use healthcare any more than I do now if it were free. I doubt that I am the exception.  Sitting in a doctor's office for 2 hours or half the night in an emergency room is not the way I like to spend my day.  I have been in the hospital twice in my life.  Both were horrible experiences, I hope I never have to repeat.  So I strongly disagree that people will overuse healthcare if it's free.

Healthcare is always rationed.  Without insurance, it's rationed based on your ability to pay.  If you have insurance, it's rationed by your carrier.  If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the government.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 29, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> The biggest problem with our current health care model is that no one knows what anything costs.  Do you know what a doctor charges for an office visit. a blood panel, an x ray, an EKG, an appendectomy etc?
> 
> The answer in all cases is "No" for the vast majority of people.
> 
> ...


I receive an explanation of benefits for every claim received by my insurance company.  I assumed all insurance companies do this.  If you pay the bills yourself, you certainly should have a bill that itemizes the cost.

Patients demand services but they are not a positive force for controlling healthcare costs.  30% of the healthcare costs are expended on end of life care.  Dying patients do not do cost comparisons.  Younger patients with insurance have little incentive to do so.  Even if patents had the incentive, comparing quality of services versus cost is well beyond their capability.

The only parties that control cost are insurance companies and government.  Insurance companies negotiate contracts for services with providers in their network.  Medicare puts limits on the amount they will pay.  This is really the only cost controls.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 29, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The issue is not that it would be overused. Simply that demand will go up. Without a corresponding increase in resources, access will get get worse. Like it or not that demand will go up is the argument of proponents of Obamacare simply stated another way. 

What is the reason we are being told health care needs to be reformed in this country? What we are being told is that if not but for the cost, more people would receive the care they need. Therefore if we solve the problem of cost, those that weren't using the system before now will be.

So as you said it will be rationed another way. Do you trust government to ration it fairly? Wouldn't you rather have some level of control over who it gets rationed to in case that who is you?


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 29, 2011)

Rationed?  That depends.  Since I pay most all of my invoices out of my check book, it isn't rationed by any insurance or government entity.  Perhaps if I have cancer like my neighbor and need $300,000 of care, my insurance company might have some say in the matter.  

But for normal, "hey doc I think I have the flu".....I am not rationed.  I go to any doctor, any hospital, any ancillary I want to go to and there is no rationing.  

If ya all want to go the government route there will be rationing, there is not a country that doesn't ration the care.....I say go for it but leave me out!  IF there is to be rationing leave that up to the individuals present condition in life.  I don't want some bureaucrat saying when to hook me to the ventilator and when to disconnect me from the ventilator.

Try working within government regulations sometime and you'll soon see how insane they can get.  Two hundred pages to tell how to make brownies.



Flopper said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

> Healthcare is always rationed.  Without insurance, it's rationed based  on your ability to pay.  If you have insurance, it's rationed by your  carrier.  If you have Medicare or Medicaid, it's rationed by the  government.



That's why government healthcare is bad.  No matter if you have the money or not, a bureaucrat tells you if you are eligible for, or allowed to be treated when the schedule allows.

A free market rations by setting value of a commodity limiting access by ability to pay.  Sucks for some, but it is the most fair option out there.



> So I strongly disagree that people will overuse healthcare if it's free.



Sorry, economics 101 disagrees with you.  When a price lowers, demand rises.  You personally may not.  Others will.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Then so are roads and mail and firehouses, not to mention police, and  street lights and the public schools.
> 
> 
> 
> Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better.


Really now?  Who will be paying for the roads?  Interstate highways?  Do tell who will provide the money for the maintenance. Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get to go to in inner cities?  



Big Fitz said:


> > There is no mystery to the concept that healthier people are more  productive people.
> 
> 
> All for the collective, eh?  Keep the body politik healthy.  Works great till you're the one denied healthcare because some beancounter has decided you're obsolete and not worth the society's dollars to keep healthy, because they're better spent elsewhere.  Then the panic begins for you.
> ...


It is the benefit of the company/town/state/country if the people of that company/town/state/country are more productive than counterparts.  Again, this is not a difficult concept.  Promoting healthy hard work is always beneficial for an area compared to less productivity.  Do I really need to go over the basics of economics here?



Big Fitz said:


> > If you really want survival of the fittest, why have healthcare at all?   Why should doctors even treat people like you instead of hording  health knowledge on their families exclusively?  The concept is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman.  It's all or nothing, eh?  Before the government started interfering with wage and price controls in the 1930's forcing businesses to shoulder healthcare costs because they were forbidden to increase wages, paying for healthcare was much more reasonable.  It's always been expensive, but it was at least possible to afford with catastrophic health insurance.  This is no longer health insurance we're talking about.  We've had the discussion moved to be that over deserving free whole life care.  This is impossible to sustain and anyone not an economic ignoramus can see it.


I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman."  Survival of the fittest works for natural systems.  Civilization is not such a system.  We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology.  Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such.  Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.



Big Fitz said:


> > EXACTLY right.  The current healthcare system setup has robbed America  of one of its underlying fundamentals: free market capitalism and  competition.
> 
> 
> Soooo... now you WANT free markets?  Gonna give yourself whiplash changing directions like that.  Or is this an example of doublethink in action?


The fundamentals of an economy keep it in line by competition driving down prices.  Our current system has REMOVED that ability.  A government option would PROMOTE that ability.  Alternately, a superseding entity that can mandate that down-driven price can also accomplish that goal.  Either way, the goal is still to drive down prices, and there are two options there.  

Now if you have an ACTUAL refutation of these concepts, I'd love to hear it.  Otherwise, please stop whining without a real point.



Big Fitz said:


> > This really shouldn't be too hard of a concept.  Please try to stay with  me here. Healthier people are more productive than sicker counterparts,  and that has nothing to do with non-counterpart comparisons as you just  made.  This should be common sense.  Sick people call out to work more,  cannot perform their jobs as well, etc. That's not to say that any  nation with healthcare by default is more productive.  It's saying that  any given population can decrease their productivity by decreasing their  health, and vice versa. Do you actually disagree with this?
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to blend incompatible arguments.  You want to believe that economics give a shit about 'nice'.


No, my argument has nothing to do with "nice," and I have no clue where you could have acquired that idea.  Sick people call out of work more, cannot perform their jobs as well, and decrease personal and organization productivity.  A country's productivity is comprised of the productivity of its businesses, which is comprised of the productivity of its employees.  This has nothing to do with nice.  It just means that more sick days means less is being DONE.  Which part of that do you disagree with?

Or will you just keep whining without actually pointing out anything specific that you believe is incorrect?  Maybe you should write another paragraph about vague actions and how my debate points make you feel sad.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 29, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> Now it is clear, you just like to argue.  It doesn't matter if you have your head up your you-know-where, you'll just argue for the hell of it.  The statement below shows you have no idea what you are talking about.  One hundred percent of the time there is no generic.


Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it.  You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug.  The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid.  



urdrwho said:


> Rationed?  That depends.  Since I pay most all of my invoices out of my check book, it isn't rationed by any insurance or government entity.  Perhaps if I have cancer like my neighbor and need $300,000 of care, my insurance company might have some say in the matter.
> 
> But for normal, "hey doc I think I have the flu".....I am not rationed.  I go to any doctor, any hospital, any ancillary I want to go to and there is no rationing.


And this has little to do with the greater health care costs generated by this country.  



urdrwho said:


> If ya all want to go the government route there will be rationing, there is not a country that doesn't ration the care.....I say go for it but leave me out!  IF there is to be rationing leave that up to the individuals present condition in life.  I don't want some bureaucrat saying when to hook me to the ventilator and when to disconnect me from the ventilator.


This very clearly shows you have little idea of how hospital systems work in this country.  Perhaps you should do some reading before putting forth a poor opinion again.


----------



## Flopper (Jan 29, 2011)

*I believe the vast number of people that would seek additional healthcare if it were free, would not be the elderly, because their healthcare is pretty well covered by Medicare now.  Medicaid already covers the poor.  Most of the middle class is covered by insurance now.  So most of the additional demand would come from the middle class without insurance and not covered by Medicaid.  Most of this group are younger workers who do not have the health problems of the older workers.  Of course there will be some increase in demand, but I seriously doubt the demand would tax the industry enough to cause a crisis since there would be increases in supply.

I agree, if we solved the problem of cost, we solve most of the problem, but that is not going to happen with or without the new healthcare law.

I guess I am not concerned with government rationing of healthcare under a free system, because it's not really a free system because it would run as Medicare is run today and most people would be required to pay premiums.  The government establishes the amount it will pay for all procedures.  All claims go to the government.  Payments are made to providers.  Those providers that do not accept the payment as full payment for services bill the patient or Supplemental insurance or Medicaid.  The cost of claims is used to calculate the premiums, which are billed either to Medicaid or the patient.  So the government replaces the insurance companies.  The premiums are determined by the cost of the claims and processing with no profit added.  The health insurance companies provide only secondary insurance paying what government does not pay.  Medicare operates as it currently does.  Healthcare providers are still privately owned and operated.  

However, since the single payer system was rejected, healthcare claims and insurance are going to work pretty much as it does today.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 29, 2011)

> Who will be paying for the roads?  Interstate highways?



Trying to blur the lines between appointed duties of government and tasks better privatized does not win the argument.  It is a shared public good used by everyone for the function of society.  It is the duty of government to provide and maintain routes of transportation.  The same way everyone benefits equally from military protection, courts, weights and measures and the like, you fail when you attempt to try a redacto in absurdum to claim then that because these basic services, which are the purpose of every government equal a tacit permission for complete state control as is the core of socialism.



> Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get  to go to in inner cities?



As someone who has worked busing those children to private schools in the inner cities, the parents pay for them.  I've driven for charter schools in some of the worst areas of the twin cities who deal in very rough and special need kids.  Their parents are poor as well as rich who want their kids to get the best education possible.  It was great when I watched two 6th graders at one of these schools discuss SHAKESPEARE that their teacher had assigned.  Don't hand me your class warfare rhetoric on schooling.  I've personal experience with it and have seen it's bunk.



> It is the benefit of the company/town/state/country if the people of  that company/town/state/country are more productive than counterparts.   Again, this is not a difficult concept.  Promoting healthy hard work is  always beneficial for an area compared to less productivity.  Do I  really need to go over the basics of economics here?



What does this have to do with my response?  nothing.  I would LOVE it if you used basic economics based on relevant concepts instead of imaginary values that have little to no impact on a market.  You are trying to make an argument for a question no one asked and that is the benefit of a healthy/productive workforce.  This has no bearing on what health care *should *cost.



> I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman."  Survival of the  fittest works for natural systems.  Civilization is not such a system.   We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology.   Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage,  and should not be treated as such.  Applying darwin to this idea is  foolish.



Who filled your head with THIS malarky?  Civilization is immune to economic forces because it is based on intelligence?  Hell, by that statement, the Athenians should still be the most powerful civilization in the world because they valued philosophy so much.  I am not talking social darwinism here.  I'm talking about Economic 'physics'.  The most efficient, cost effective, productive method for administering, creating, delivering and supporting a culture wins, unless it refuses to defend itself.  How do you think intelligence mitigates these fundamental factors of survival when the same factors work to tear a culture down?  But again, irrelevant to the discussion on what the cost of healthcare should be.



> The fundamentals of an economy keep it in line by competition driving  down prices.  Our current system has REMOVED that ability.



Partially, but you've said something I agree with.  Government HAS tinkered too much with the proper and healthy operation of a free and competitive market in healthcare.  It's why government needs to be FORBIDDEN to participate in it beyond protecting consumers, providers and fostering fair trade and competition.  It should never be allowed to administer it.



> A government option would PROMOTE that ability.



Incorrect.  A government option that sets the prices artificially low skews the system, making sure that money flees the free market to the cheaper government subsidized system, causing the free market to get weaker and weaker and shrink as the government option grows.  The government option then grows unwieldy and overused, forcing bad care and rationing since it has killed off the free market.  Again, Economics 201 this time.

If you tamper with the natural price ceilings the market does bad things.  If you create a price ceiling, all prices go to it and freeze there.  Only when you remove it do prices begin to go back to normal equilibrium.  



> Alternately, a superseding entity that can mandate that down-driven  price can also accomplish that goal.  Either way, the goal is still to  drive down prices, and there are two options there.



False.  Take the energy market.  If you removed all subsidies, all green energy would fail and disappear inside of a couple years.  Why?  Because it cannot compete against oil, coal and natural gas or nuclear.  Period. You are wanting to do the same with healthcare.  Create an artificially low priced option that is not sustainable in a market, subsidize it and then pretend it won't affect the rest of the industry???  You're lying to yourself.



> Now if you have an ACTUAL refutation of these concepts, I'd love to hear  it.  Otherwise, please stop whining without a real point.



LOL... I suppose all the previous refutations, particularly the energy markets have no bearing on economic principles you are only passingly familiar with when twistable to your desired end result?



> No, my argument has nothing to do with "nice," and I have no clue where  you could have acquired that idea.  Sick people call out of work more,  cannot perform their jobs as well, and decrease personal and  organization productivity.  A country's productivity is comprised of the  productivity of its businesses, which is comprised of the productivity  of its employees.  This has nothing to do with nice.  It just means that  more sick days means less is being DONE.  Which part of that do you  disagree with?



Again, still irrelevant to the OP of how much should health care cost.  You want to debate productivity, start a new thread.  It has no bearing here.

You want to focus on wellness as it relates to productivity, fine.  but you need to explain how this is even relevant to the issue at hand.



> Or will you just keep whining without actually pointing out anything  specific that you believe is incorrect?  Maybe you should write another  paragraph about vague actions and how my debate points make you feel  sad.


Only one here who's debate points are sad is you.  Please, remain germane to the topic instead of changing the discussion.  Hell, I never went out for debate club oh so many eons ago and I know that one.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 30, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Who will be paying for the roads?  Interstate highways?
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to blur the lines between appointed duties of government and tasks better privatized does not win the argument.  It is a shared public good used by everyone for the function of society.  It is the duty of government to provide and maintain routes of transportation.


Wait a minute.  It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively privatized," and now you're back pedaling away from supporting your own claim by saying I am blurring the lines?  If you can't support what you say, don't bother saying it in the first place.  But you are right in that roads are a shared good used by everyone for the function of society.  So is healthcare. 



Big Fitz said:


> > Who would be paying for the private schools that all the poor kids get  to go to in inner cities?
> 
> 
> 
> As someone who has worked busing those children to private schools in the inner cities, the parents pay for them.


Poor parents would pay for schools if they were "effectively privatized?"  That's delusional.  You may have driven a school bus for a while, but you have a poor understanding of economics. If school systems are completely privatized as you stated they could be, then poor neighborhoods would have poor schools.  That's the case now when tax dollars are already being shunted from better neighborhoods.  How do you expect a privatized school system to acquire funding in a poor neighborhood? Which parents will be paying?



Big Fitz said:


> What does this have to do with my response?  nothing.  I would LOVE it if you used basic economics based on relevant concepts instead of imaginary values that have little to no impact on a market.  You are trying to make an argument for a question no one asked and that is the benefit of a healthy/productive workforce.  This has no bearing on what health care *should *cost.


It has nothing to do with your response.  It was responding to urdrwho, and then you responded and failed to refute it.  The original argument, which you clearly failed to follow on multiple occasions now, was that healthcare is a necessary social commodity that allows for a productive society.  Poor healthcare reduces productivity of that society.  This is still not a hard concept you seem to be struggling with.  If you want to jump in on other people's conversations, you may want to figure out what was being said.  If you feel that statement is wrong, point out why.  Your inane sidetracks about people wanting to be "nice" or the above quote is just foolish.




Big Fitz said:


> > I think you mean "slippery slope" not "strawman." Survival of the fittest works for natural systems. Civilization is not such a system. We have used intelligence to compensate for deficiencies in biology. Being "fit" in this society has little to do with physical advantage, and should not be treated as such. Applying darwin to this idea is foolish.
> 
> 
> Who filled your head with THIS malarky?  Civilization is immune to economic forces because it is based on intelligence?


Now THAT is a strawman argument.  Can you point out in any of my posts where I've claimed civilization is immune to economic forces?  The remainder of that paragraph rant was removed as it has nothing to do with what was actually said.  Perhaps you should reread and try to respond again.



Big Fitz said:


> Partially, but you've said something I agree with.  Government HAS tinkered too much with the proper and healthy operation of a free and competitive market in healthcare.  It's why government needs to be FORBIDDEN to participate in it beyond protecting consumers, providers and fostering fair trade and competition.  It should never be allowed to administer it.
> 
> A government option that sets the prices artificially low skews the system, making sure that money flees the free market to the cheaper government subsidized system, causing the free market to get weaker and weaker and shrink as the government option grows.  The government option then grows unwieldy and overused, forcing bad care and rationing since it has killed off the free market.  Again, Economics 201 this time.


Except consumers are NOT protected right now.  Opening the flood gates by removing state restrictions and placing in REAL competition would re-instate that protection.  Alternately, the government providing a check through it's own insurance option would accomplish the same goal.  Making broad sweeping generalizations like "it should never be allowed" has no support to it.  Try refuting the concept instead of just saying "never."

The fact is, the public option was never meant to set prices artificially low, and thus the remainder of THAT point you made is also incorrect.  The point was to set the prices at a point that balances the intake and the output.  In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much about what the public option was attempting to establish.



Big Fitz said:


> Please, remain germane to the topic instead of changing the discussion.


Please try to actually follow the discussion, and realize that when I type something under a quote of someone else, I'm not responding to something you're saying.  Try to avoid being so confused at such discussion points.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 30, 2011)

Oh look...









> It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively  privatized,"


They can be.  Again, redacto in absurdum fail.  I never said ALL. Fire Departments, yes.  Police Departments yes.  I'd even throw in post office even though it's constitutionally mandated, yes.  Those were the services you listed and I answered.  Nice try to try and make a qualified statement, universal Alinskyite.



> So is healthcare.


False.  Those blessed with good health through luck of the draw or constant effort on their part use it less than those who are born sickly.  It is a necessity based service that has no need for government control/administration because individuals can gain access and cure through trade with other individuals trained in the profession.  If I don't need treatment or Rosacea, Port Wine Skin, Pregnancy, Hemophilia, Hepatitis B or any of a million other health issues... I don't get it.  This is not equivalent to a road or court.

Again.  You fail at your attempt at universalizing you own example from two municipal services to a human right.  I never heard "life, liberty, fire prevention and the pursuit of happiness."



> Poor parents would pay for schools if they were "effectively  privatized?"  That's delusional.


  Never heard of education vouchers have you?  Exemption from taxes so their kids can go to private school.  Huh.  Whatta surprise.  To claim it doesn't happen when I've spent 3 years DRIVING THESE KIDS TO THEIR SCHOOLS is beyond moronic.  No... I didn't get those paychecks.  I didn't really drive those routes and those kids didn't exist... because it fucks your argument up.

You're going to make me open another new case of fail for you aren't I?  



> You may have driven a school bus for a while, but you have a poor  understanding of economics. If school systems are completely privatized  as you stated they could be, then poor neighborhoods would have poor  schools


Assumptive with no proof.  Previous posts have pwned your economic ignorance.  More fail but denial seems to be an effective anodyne for you.



> How do you expect a privatized school system to acquire funding in a  poor neighborhood? Which parents will be paying?


Sorry, this discussion is not about school district planning.  Make a new thread somewhere.  But please, keep dodging the OP's question:  what should healthcare cost?



> The original argument, which you clearly failed to follow on multiple  occasions now, was that healthcare is a necessary social commodity that  allows for a productive society.  Poor healthcare reduces productivity  of that society.


No, I followed it just fine.  It's problem is it's not germane to the topic at hand as you work to get off the uncomfortable position you're stuck in unable to answer the OP.



> If you want to jump in on other people's conversations, you may want to  figure out what was being said.  If you feel that statement is wrong,  point out why.  Your inane sidetracks about people wanting to be "nice"  or the above quote is just foolish.


Would this be the net troll's complex version of saying "I am rubber you are glue..?"  Public forum.  Butch up Sally Frillypants.  Anyone can kibbitz on the conversation, particularly when your point is so full of irrelevance and fail to the topic at hand:  what should healthcare cost?



> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe you implied that right here.  I've highlighted it in red for you.  Implied, assumed, alluded.  



> Except consumers are NOT protected right now.


>cough< FDA >cough<  Ever hear of the USDA either?  How about the private organizations of consumer protection like the UL, BBB, Chambers of Commerce and Consumer Reports?  Have a six pack of fail for that idiotic statement.



> Opening the flood gates by removing state restrictions and placing in  REAL competition would re-instate that protection.


Again attempting to universalized a qualified statement.  I did not say I wanted Lassaiez Faire capitalism or total free markets.  Those have big problems too.  I have maintained for YEARS on this board that there is a place for regulation of trade in the constitution.  Government is to be the watchdog, not the administrator.  It is to protect the public, the employees and the weak from mob rule, chaos as well as tyrannical plutocratic oppression and monopolies and trusts.  Have a party ball of fail.



> Alternately, the government providing a check through it's own  insurance option would accomplish the same goal.


Let's explain something to you.  A government option could exist and compete fairly in certain conditions.  The problem is by nature it won't.  What are these specific conditions?  Simple.  They must price themselves at fair market levels without subsidization.  That means it can offer products that are valued accordingly to cost to provide.  The instant you start pricing your product below it's natural level you affect the market and break the natural balance of the market.  

So if you give a product worth 500 bucks a month at industry, unsubsidized standards, a subsidization and allow individuals to purchase it at 250 dollars and use taxation on everyone, even those who pay their own insurance, to support the artificially low price you've damaged it's equalibrium.  Who won't go for a 500 dollar product for half price?  Its personally economic foolishness to not take the best deal possible.  And so, people flee the private companies for this great deal they can't compete with because they don't get tax dollars.  This makes them economically weaker and finally destroying them or forcing them to get out of the business.  That is why a government option fails.  But if it does not artificially price point itself lower than the market, it could exist.

The problem is, you deadbeat socialists don't want to compete fairly.  You want a utopian 'free health care' fantasy that cannot exist in reality.  You forget that no matter how heart wrenching it is, you can't give everyone everything for free.  That is the fundamental flaw with your "logic".  It's not based on what is but what you wish it was.

So again... fail.



> The fact is, the public option was never meant to set prices  artificially low


Flat out bullshit.  If it wasn't, the government wouldn't be having to spend money on it, and would essentially making a not-for-profit government owned insurance company that received no tax money.  It has never been self sustainable.  Nothing in the government is.



> Making broad sweeping generalizations like "it should never be allowed"  has no support to it. Try refuting the concept instead of just saying "never."


Sure it does.  It lacks constitutional authority.  Now individual STATES can do it.  The 10th Amendment covers that.  Unfortunately, your argument has never once been about states doing this, but the federal government doing this.  Therefore, it should NEVER be allowed.



> The point was to set the prices at a point that balances the intake and  the output.


You can't do that by fiat.  The market sets prices based on value, consumption and cost.  If you price a product lower than your costs, you go out of business or MUST find a new source of revenue.  Government does that by using taxes and spreading the cost over everyone claiming 'it's the most fair' way to do it.  It's not of course.  The most fair would be to stay out of it, let the market set the prices and leave well enough alone.

This is rudimentary economic theory here.  You can get this at any private community college.



> In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each  year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something  artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much  about what the public option was attempting to establish.


I know what the believers want to think that this is true.  Problem is you've only established one part of the equation.  You're assuming, incorrectly, that 100 dollars total income equals 100 dollars in value as well as 100 dollars in cost.  The reality is that the three aspects are independent of each other.  A business (at least a successful one) creates a product that has X cost.  They then set a profit point for this product at Y because it includes perceived future costs and the necessity to improve over time.  The product is perceived by the public to have Z value.  If the equation of X+Y>Z, the product will fail.  The perceived value must exceed the actual cost and profit point.  And just so you know, the profit point is not something that automatically ends up in the pockets of wall street fat cats.  It goes into investment funds of their own, inflating the money supply by allowing for lending and profit of it's own.  Money works and grows the economy so everyone can benefit.  Their profit grows, they can expand, and offer more products and protect themselves against downturns.

But, since you do not even have the capacity to follow through on the bigger picture and implications of economic impact created by government interference, I'm not surprised you don't know this stuff.  You stop at the simple theory and then don't try to work it through real world impact... like most libs.  Reality often disagrees with the elegance of theory.  

Which is why Utopian Collectivist beliefs fail.

and speaking of which... you've been:






yet again.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 30, 2011)

Can anyone tell me why smarterthahick posts this "100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians. "

And then in post #149 he says he  "Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it. You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug. The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid. "

Does anyone know WTF he is saying?  He says that 100% of the time there is no generic but for some reason he feels that he said a factual statement.  Did he even take time to read what I posted from the FDA?  To say that older meds will have more side effects --- here is your quote "older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects." flys in the face of how medicines are even tested. 

I think we have a young kid on this forum.  Why do I say so?  Because he posts things like this "This very clearly shows you have little idea of how hospital systems work in this country."  Why does it clearly show?  Just because you don't agree with another persons position never shows they don't understand the administration of hospitals.

Can someone send Smarterthanhick PDR for Christmas?

Oh and please tell him that the reason people don't copy the entire quote is to lessen the clutter while reading the posts.  

He seems to think that a debating skill is to tell other people that they don't understand but never gives the fact of what they don't understand.  Smarterthanhick, please don't become an attorney because if you do your E&O will take a beating.


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 30, 2011)

I agree.  

Please tell smarterthnhick that all over this country you have volunteer fire departments.  Fire departments are not always a government entity.  In my area we also have a private police department.  It is a regional police department that can be purchased by any local government that wants to use their services.

We also have a toll road in our State.  Although it isn't entirely private, the funds collected to maintain the road from the people that use the road.  The length of the toll road is 350 miles.

Seems smarterthnhick lives in a bubble.  Anybody send him his PDR yet so he can look up generic verses brand name?



Big Fitz said:


> Oh look...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2011)

Flopper said:


> ........ since there would be increases in supply.



From where? What part of Obamacare creates more medical industry employees and facilities?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Let me ask this question -
> 
> If someone goes to an ER at a hospital, they are not refused treatment, who should be paying for that?



Well, who benefited from it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You didn't ask who WAS going to pay for it.  You asked who SHOULD pay for it.  Whether they can or can't, they still SHOULD.

FYI, I don't know of any hospitals that won't let you work out a payment plan.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No, you just need to fund scads of waste and dead weight, because that whole "no need to show a profit" thing also eliminates any need for the government to be lean and efficient in operations.  And they never are, are they?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Still doesn't change your original question of "Who SHOULD pay for it?"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



It would be even more efficient to just stop paying for other people.  Why is their health supposed to be more valuable to me than it is to them?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Maybe it would be better if you weren't starting from the falacious assumption that we ARE going to just pay for everyone's health care, that they're somehow entitled to have that from the rest of us, so all that needs to be discussed is how WE are going to pay for our "obligation" to a bunch of sucking leech strangers.

Perhaps you could do us all the courtesy of starting from the assumption that the health and health care of people we've never met is of little to no interest to the rest of us, and therefore that helping them out is optional, and if - IF - we are to give them that aid, it is charitable and voluntary, rather than something they are somehow entitled to just because they happen to be breathing in and out on the same planet at the moment.

I, for one, deeply resent your breezy set of assumptions on this score.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Well, if I die and leave behind a $100,000 debt, my family gets to pay for it.  How is that not good enough for other people?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > No you spend all the money in the world to save them.  To accept your premises that we are a community is based on socialist thought.  It IS up to the individual to fund his ow existence.  If my work in life doesn't allow me to travel to another country for a certain procedure, that is life.  Yep...I could die but* it is due to my hand, my work, my own financial situation that was created by my hand.*  It isn't determined by taking money from you to fix my situation in life.   Why is that so hard to understand?
> ...



Why not?  YOU seem to have an attitude of "if you have money, fuck you, your problems don't matter".  You've got all your concern going to the people who didn't bother to plan and provide for themselves, so they don't need OUR sympathy, too.

For the record, I think YOU are a shitty person for carelessly blowing off the pain and problems you cause productive people in your pursuit of feeling like Mother Theresa among the lepers with their wallets.  So while you're sanctimoniously putting people down for daring to disagree with your worldview, just make sure you factor in the fact that you aren't the only one who can judge and insult.  

Thanks for letting us know what kind of person YOU are.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 30, 2011)




----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Yeah, because "compassion" is defined as "denying reality".  Hey, let's all be really "compassionate" and pretend that people are going to be able to live forever if we just spend enough of other people's money.

You can talk about "compassion" when you're talking out of your OWN wallet.



RDD_1210 said:


> How sad are you? I hope you never lose your job and have to face the struggles of the real world. You might actually be required to use your brain then.....would go right along with your lack of heart.



You self-righteous prick.  Where do you get off with this "only the people who are scraping by paycheck to paycheck, looking for the government to care for them face the 'struggles of the real world'" bullshit?  I'd say a pretty big "struggle of the real world" is having less and less of one's paycheck available to care for one's family because some sanctimonious asshole on a sainthood kick is taxing it all away to pay for his warm, fuzzy feeling of godhood.

And if Syrenn isn't having to run around after you cutrate Gandhi wannabes on the left, looking for a handout, I'd say she's ALREADY using her brain.  Or maybe you define "using your brain" as "figuring out how to fill out the paperwork for welfare", rather than "figuring out how not to wind up on welfare".  That would go right along with your brilliant definition of "compassion" as "spending other people's money".



RDD_1210 said:


> For the record, are you a religious person?



For the record, fuck off.  People who try on that whole "if you were really religious, you'd adhere to my political policies" schtick make me want to heave even more than your previous self-righteous smugness does.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Thanks for making it know what kind of person you are:  judgemental, self-righteous, and greedy for other people's money to fund your own sense of self-esteem.  But don't be proud, because there's nothing about you and your attitude to be proud of.

Just remember:  while you're condemning others for not being up to YOUR moral standards, other people are condemning you for not being up to theirs.  And you're not even CLOSE to meeting up to mine.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



So we're supposed to keep people from ever getting sick and dying?  "Right to life" now means "right to never die"?  Next ridiculous argument.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 30, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No, another person who KNOWS we're already paying for other people's health care, and doesn't think it's a good thing, OR that we need to expand it.

Just because you and your ilk have already fucked up our country doesn't actually mean that the rest of us are required to let you extend your fuck-up-ery.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 30, 2011)

Fitz, you seem to have trouble supporting your claims, and need to resort to silly pictures and logical fallacies that don't actually apply. Perhaps you should reverse that tactic.



Big Fitz said:


> > It was YOU who claimed that these services could be "effectively  privatized,"
> 
> 
> They can be.  Again, redacto in absurdum fail.  I never said ALL. Fire Departments, yes.  Police Departments yes.  I'd even throw in post office even though it's constitutionally mandated, yes.  Those were the services you listed and I answered.  Nice try to try and make a qualified statement, universal Alinskyite.


Once again, you don't know what logical fallacy you're referring to, and using it incorrectly.  You didn't say ALL, you said all the ones I listed, which include the ones I've continued to bring up.  Your exact quote was "Every last one of these could be effectively privatized and would probably function better."  So you're right, you didn't say "ALL" you said "every last one." 

So again I ask: if all schools were privatized to "function better" who would pay for the schools in the poor areas?  Who would pay for the interstate highways?  This is your claim.  Try supporting it with things aside from lolcats.



Big Fitz said:


> > So is healthcare.
> 
> 
> False.  Those blessed with good health through luck of the draw or constant effort on their part use it less than those who are born sickly.  It is a necessity based service that has no need for government control/administration because individuals can gain access and cure through trade with other individuals trained in the profession.  If I don't need treatment or Rosacea, Port Wine Skin, Pregnancy, Hemophilia, Hepatitis B or any of a million other health issues... I don't get it.  This is not equivalent to a road or court.
> ...


This is the heart of the matter: how people view healthcare. The fact is, if you don't need to drive, or don't need to sue someone, you similarly don't use a road or court.  You're not doing a very good job of distinguishing what makes roads, public schools, and the legal system as necessary shared commodities from healthcare.  The fact remains that the use of healthcare, much like "every last one" of the public commodities I've previously listed, is used as needed by everyone at some point.

This has nothing to do with human rights, as your strawman argument claims.  It has to do with necessary shared commodities.  



Big Fitz said:


> Never heard of education vouchers have you?  Exemption from taxes so their kids can go to private school.  Huh.  Whatta surprise.  To claim it doesn't happen when I've spent 3 years DRIVING THESE KIDS TO THEIR SCHOOLS is beyond moronic.  No... I didn't get those paychecks.  I didn't really drive those routes and those kids didn't exist... because it fucks your argument up.


You seem to have a hard time following your own poor reasoning.  Let's review.  You claimed that public schools would be effectively run if they were all privatized instead of via government and taxation.  Your solution as to who would pay for the schools in poor areas when money is no longer coming from taxes is: taxes. Do you not see the blatant contradiction in your own argument?  

If all schools are privatized, as you suggested they effectively could be, there would be NO MONEY from taxes to pay for them.  So once again I ask: who is paying for the public schools in poor areas, given that taxes aren't doing it?



Big Fitz said:


> You're going to make me open another new case of fail for you aren't I?


I've enjoyed watching you suck down the ones you've already opened, so please be my guest and have another.



Big Fitz said:


> Sorry, this discussion is not about school district planning.  Make a new thread somewhere.  But please, keep dodging the OP's question:  what should healthcare cost?


Oh I see.  You make a ridiculous claim, and then run away whenever you're called on it.  Well done.  



Big Fitz said:


> No, I followed it just fine.  It's problem is it's not germane to the topic at hand as you work to get off the uncomfortable position you're stuck in unable to answer the OP.


Once again, ignoring any point you can't actually refute with some hand-waived sidestepping.  How pathetic.  This central point directly ties to the core topic, being an examination of healthcare costs and who should pay for it. 



Big Fitz said:


> Would this be the net troll's complex version of saying "I am rubber you are glue..?"  Public forum.  Butch up Sally Frillypants.  Anyone can kibbitz on the conversation, particularly when your point is so full of irrelevance and fail to the topic at hand:  what should healthcare cost?


You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, as demonstrated several times now.  I am not saying you should stay out of other people's points.  I'm saying you should figure out what's actually being said before jumping into the conversation half-assed, as you clearly showed yourself to be clueless about those excerpts you quoted and their context.  



Big Fitz said:


> I believe you implied that right here.  I've highlighted it in red for you.  Implied, assumed, alluded.


Once again I can only assume you have difficulty with reading comprehension.  What you highlighted in red states that physical survival of the fittest applies to a natural system, and not a civilization such as our own where intelligence and technological advancements have since compensated for physical barriers.  Perhaps you lack the understanding to differentiate between "immune" and "not applicable."  An American can be immune to the flu because they were vaccinated.  They are not immune to the black plague, but they will never get it in their life.  It's not applicable to modern Americans.  Let me know if you're still struggling with the concept, or want to actually address it instead of making ridiculous strawman interpretations. 



Big Fitz said:


> >cough< FDA >cough<  Ever hear of the USDA either?  How about the private organizations of consumer protection like the UL, BBB, Chambers of Commerce and Consumer Reports?


Please explain: how are the USDA, FDA, BBB, and Chambers of Commerce protecting consumers from insurance inflation in a market that restricts competition?  I know this can be very confusing for some people because the economics are intertwined with the healthcare, but the POINT is about how consumers are not protected against monopolistic insurance companies.  This is the very reason for most of the latest healthcare reform that passed.  



Big Fitz said:


> Let's explain something to you.  A government option could exist and compete fairly in certain conditions.  The problem is by nature it won't.  What are these specific conditions?  Simple.  They must price themselves at fair market levels without subsidization.  That means it can offer products that are valued accordingly to cost to provide.  The instant you start pricing your product below it's natural level you affect the market and break the natural balance of the market.


Thanks for directly and completely acknowledging the point I just made as correct.  I'm glad you agree.



Big Fitz said:


> The problem is, you deadbeat socialists don't want to compete fairly.  You want a utopian 'free health care' fantasy that cannot exist in reality.


This is actually completely false, and once again shows that you don't actually understand the concept.  No one in this thread has once mentioned such a thing. Looks like another strawman argument for you.



Big Fitz said:


> Flat out bullshit.  If it wasn't, the government wouldn't be having to spend money on it, and would essentially making a not-for-profit government owned insurance company that received no tax money.  It has never been self sustainable.  Nothing in the government is.


Which once again shows you are clueless on the goals of the public option.  The purpose was to do exactly what you just outlined: non-profit government run insurance company that needed government startup money that would be repayed, to thereafter be self-sustainable.  That was the point: to instill a non-profit equal opportunity free market competitor to keep the private sector in check. 

Perhaps you should do some reading on the topic before continuing to talk about it while claiming how everyone else fails so much:
Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"government-run health insurance agency"
"financed entirely by premiums without subsidy from the Federal government"
"provide choice where few options exist"



Big Fitz said:


> > In other words, if 5 people spend a collective $100 on healthcare each  year, the pre-established cost would be $20 each, not something  artificially lower. It sounds like you don't actually know too much  about what the public option was attempting to establish.
> 
> 
> I know what the believers want to think that this is true.  Problem is you've only established one part of the equation.  You're assuming, incorrectly, that 100 dollars total income equals 100 dollars in value as well as 100 dollars in cost.  The reality is that the three aspects are independent of each other.  A business (at least a successful one) creates a product that has X cost.  They then set a profit point for this product at Y because it includes perceived future costs and the necessity to improve over time.  The product is perceived by the public to have Z value.  If the equation of X+Y>Z, the product will fail.  The perceived value must exceed the actual cost and profit point.  And just so you know, the profit point is not something that automatically ends up in the pockets of wall street fat cats.  It goes into investment funds of their own, inflating the money supply by allowing for lending and profit of it's own.  Money works and grows the economy so everyone can benefit.  Their profit grows, they can expand, and offer more products and protect themselves against downturns.


It's the exact same concept.  Reworded: if the total healthcare associated spending generated by 5 people, including all healthcare, administrative, and other costs equals $100 every single year, the payment for each would be $20.  It's amazing how you can pull out completely ridiculous innuendos that are unsupported by my actual text, yet can't discern the simple meaning behind this concept.  

Is there any part of that you actually disagree with or are you just typing to complain about minutia because you have reading comprehension problems?  At the end of the day, I can act as immature as you by typing "fail" and "you're wrong" in place of content, but SUPPORTING my statements with factual evidence and proving you wrong outright has a much stronger impact.  I look forward to more immaturity in place of addressing the actual topics.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 30, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> Can anyone tell me why smarterthahick posts this "100% of the time there is not a generic, and it is important to realize that older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects. Some of these are to a negligible degree, certainly, but putting others at risk just because you have yet to experience such a side effect is negligent, and thankfully not practiced by physicians. "
> 
> And then in post #149 he says he  "Perhaps you should try rereading my statement, notice where you couldn't even copy and paste it correctly, and perhaps put some contextual clues into how your interpret it. You will clearly see that I was refuting your point in that THERE IS NOT ALWAYS a generic available for any given drug. The remainder of your argument is thus completely invalid. "
> 
> Does anyone know WTF he is saying?  He says that 100% of the time there is no generic but for some reason he feels that he said a factual statement.  Did he even take time to read what I posted from the FDA?  To say that older meds will have more side effects --- here is your quote "older meds can address the same thing with a higher likelihood of side effects." flys in the face of how medicines are even tested.


I know what I'm saying.  And I know you're not actually reading the words I'm saying.  In fact, you misrepresented what I was saying by misquoting me previously, but changing the word "not" to "no."  There is not always a generic for any given drug available on the market.  This is fact, which you have yet to disprove.  Changing that to "there are no generics on the market" is incorrect, and fallacious on your part.  Let me know if you're still having trouble with that.



urdrwho said:


> We also have a toll road in our State.  Although it isn't entirely private, the funds collected to maintain the road from the people that use the road.  The length of the toll road is 350 miles.


And that toll road is still public, run by the government.  Taking in money does not somehow exclude it from government oversight.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 30, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I'll summarize you're rambling posts and neg rep you sent me. 

You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder. 



Another cry baby who only cares about "how does it affect me", yet doesn't realize that healthcare reform is actually helping you, you're just not smart enough to realize it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 30, 2011)

Yep, it's official Dumberthanhick.  You're incapable of critical thinking and not worth even responding to anymore.  As I said, your denial seems to be a great anodyne for your lack of substance.

I've neither the interest or the time to explain the issue to the witless.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Jan 30, 2011)

So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running.  Have fun.  

When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited.  Google works too.  Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.  

Let me know if you change your mind and want to actually refute something I said.  Until then, it's clear to everyone that:

you are completely clueless about the concept behind the public option
you think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation
if all public schools were privatized, non-existent tax funds will go towards them
you are incapable of picking up a conversation started by other people


----------



## urdrwho (Jan 31, 2011)

Smarterthanhick you are a real case.  Narcissist comes to mind.  It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence.  People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children.  Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words.   So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true.  Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning.  Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.

Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver.   They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care.  So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.

Waivers aren&#8217;t meant to protect people from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. 

Now I broke my own rule and replied to you.  Last time though because the aphorism of arguing with the pig is true.



SmarterThanHick said:


> So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running.  Have fun.
> 
> When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited.  Google works too.  Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.
> 
> ...


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> Smarterthanhick you are a real case.  Narcissist comes to mind.  It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence.  People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children.  Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words.   So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true.  Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning.  Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.
> 
> Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver.   They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care.  So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.
> 
> ...



Do you even understand what the waivers are for? Who gets them? Why they get them? Or how long they are for. Doesn't look like it.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > Smarterthanhick you are a real case.  Narcissist comes to mind.  It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence.  People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children.  Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words.   So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true.  Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning.  Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.
> ...



I know what they're for. They let his special buddies opt out of his special health care cause it's too damn expensive.. Next?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > urdrwho said:
> ...



Incorrect


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> So after I thoroughly shoot you down, you are responding to my evidence based reasoning by saying I don't know what I'm talking about and tucking tail and running.  Have fun.
> 
> When you'd like to actually educate yourself on some of these topics, perhaps you should read the wikipedia article I cited.  Google works too.  Heck, any basic reference on the topic would increase your understanding at this point.
> 
> ...


Shoot me down?  LOL

No.  You've proven too small to bother with.

I don't debate people who spout lunacy and ignore points, deliberately misconstrue points, peddle intellectually dishonest examples then move the goalposts when busted on it... then claim victory.

Back to the kiddie pool with you, Dumberthanshit.  This is why I never comment to you in religion threads either.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



S'not


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Let me check again......


...yup still wrong.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

> You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to  healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder.


Have the money?  You can access health care.  Don't have the money, there are private charities to help.  Think Shriners Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Ronald McDonald House.  All help people with medical issues and their associated crap becomes If government is administrating, it won't matter if you have money or not.  They say no... you get nothing.

And currently, there are HUNDREDS of state and federal government programs you can use to help with health care costs.  Pharmacies offer nurse practitioners to do basic medical care.  

Don't hand me the poor can't access healthcare.  I'm poor and I can get it any time I want.  

And lastly, if a crisis happens, you cannot be REFUSED health care till you are out of harm's way.  It is called an M-TALA violation and hospitals and doctors can be charged with a crime if they do them.



> Another cry baby who only cares about "how does it affect me", yet  doesn't realize that healthcare reform is actually helping you, you're  just not smart enough to realize it.


Really?  How?  

By collapsing competition and destroying the health care industry thanks to circumventing the market?  

By putting politicians and bureaucrats between me and my doctor just like the almost extinct HMOs did?  

By causing doctors to quit the profession, because of the new regulations and lawsuits and decreased pay and restrictions on billing?  

By increasing spending to unsustainable levels destroying the nation's economy for deadbeats?  

By overloading the system forcing rationing sooner?  

By ignoring the lack of constitutional authority to do ANY of this?

How is this helping me?  I'd rather be able to get cheap health insurance for catastrophic care from a company that has to compete nationally and covers only what I want.  I'd rather get a 'membership' to a medical network where I can use basic services and tests to a rationed level like dental or vision care, while paying for extra needs.  I'd rather be able to shop the prices of any hospital, clinic or doctor's office with publically listed prices instead of having to call a secret number, give a code and THEN be given the price on the procedure that I have no ability to compare or get a second opinion.

National healthcare ruins nations.  England and Canada prove that... and our proposed system is even worse.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

> Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver.    They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from  Obama Care.  So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's  election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program -  health care.



Closing in on 800 companies and nearly every union.  Yeah, that's going to fix the problems of healthcare.  Pass draconian laws to wreck the industry then exempt your friends.  Fucking peachy.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to  healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder.
> 
> 
> Have the money?  You can access health care.  Don't have the money, there are private charities to help.  Think Shriners Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Ronald McDonald House.  All help people with medical issues and their associated crap becomes If government is administrating, it won't matter if you have money or not.  They say no... you get nothing.
> ...



Soooooooooooo much wrong with so much of what you said. 

Not sure even where to start...The fact that you think that this healthcare reform is nationalized healthcare and that a real world solution to getting people the care they need is relying on charities is proof enough that you are clueless to the situation in this country.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Got any proof?  Seems like all the unions and those who financially supported P-BO are getting these waivers by a very large margin over anyone else.

And what's the effect of these waivers going to be, now that it's protecting hundreds of thousands of those supposed to pay into a 'fair and equitable system that spreads the costs over all citizens'?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...




"Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act.  While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer.  In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.  In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.  No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy."

Helping Americans Keep the Coverage They Have and Promoting Transparency | HHS.gov


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

So...  a waiver for a year, which will probably be renewed if Obamacare cannot be repealed as it should be.  I have to laugh at this then.



> _In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans  will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance  plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit  benefits_.



This makes me wonder why a waiver was even granted in the first place since these plans will be BANNED in 2014.  Yes that is the appropriate term because they will ended by force of law.

You do also realize  that most people do not partake in the mini med plans because they are too expensive for what they offer in service off the paycheck right?  So, really, is this a help?  Probably not.  It allows employers to pretend they are paying their employees more by offering this benefit of health insurance that nobody can afford to take.  Better to be honest, end employer based healthcare and put the cash back in employees hands so they can purchase their own health insurance policy that can't be taken from them when they change jobs.  Less government power, control and interference, so I suppose that's why you'd not like it.



> Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan  certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase  in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage.



I thought Obamacare lowered costs?  How could this increase in costs exist?  Or are all these businesses, unions cities, and counties lying?

So really... this does us any good how?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> So...  a waiver for a year, which will probably be renewed if Obamacare cannot be repealed as it should be.  I have to laugh at this then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You continue to say things that make me think you aren't even trying to understand what this legislation is about. 

The waiver is needed to ensure that short term costs don't sky rocket for these companies or their access isn't cut off completely due to lack of time needed in order to get up to standard. 



> I thought Obamacare lowered costs?  How could this increase in costs exist?  Or are all these businesses, unions cities, and counties lying?


This legislation does in fact aim to lower costs. I've outlined how this happens in multiple posts in this thread. Could it do more to lower costs....of course. But this plan is still way better then what we had before it was passed.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner





*
The reason these exemptions from the law are needed is that Obamacare forces all health insurance consumers to over-insure themselves and pay high premiums as a result. Without the waivers, many companies, non-profits and unions would simply drop their health plans*


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You say over-insure, the real world says otherwise.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Unions make up 40 percent of employees exempted from Obamacare | David Freddoso | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner
> ...










You wouldn't know the real world if it bit you in the ass. come up outta that damn basement and get some air.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

My Bottom line for all of this is:

If you want national Insurance/health care, then EVERYONE should pay the same. No one gets exemptions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 31, 2011)

Health care should cost whatever the market will bear.
The best way to reduce the cost of health care is for the consumer pay for the costs himself.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> You continue to say things that make me think you aren't even trying to understand what this legislation is about.
> 
> The waiver is needed to ensure that short term costs don't sky rocket for these companies or their access isn't cut off completely due to lack of time needed in order to get up to standard.



No we get it. You don't. What is going to change for these businesses? What variable is going to make it miraculously possible for them to afford next year, what they could not afford this year? In what warped economics class did you learn that higher cost and less choice works out better for any consumer? 



RDD_1210 said:


> This legislation does in fact aim to lower costs. I've outlined how this happens in multiple posts in this thread. Could it do more to lower costs....of course. But this plan is still way better then what we had before it was passed.



Subsidizing plans may lower the cost for consumers. It does not lower the cost of resources or the premiums. You aren't lowering costs at all. All you're doing is shifting who picks up the tab.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



My posts stand just fine without any translation from tweekos like you, thanks so much.  Should I ever think I need your help to express myself . . . well, that day will never come, but hold your breath waiting for it.



RDD_1210 said:


> You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder.



You - mistakenly thinking that your opinion is so important that I can be shamed into silence by the horror that is not being accepted by you.  

Me - perfectly happy to say you're goddamned right i don't care about the PERSONAL problems of complete strangers, nor do I feel any compulsion whatsoever to take on responsibility for those problems.  And I'm sure the fuck not going to support any public policy predicated on the assumption that I OWE those people anything.  If that makes greedy sleazebuckets like you think I'm a bad person, GOOD.  The more you talk, the more convinced I become that your disapproval is a sign that I'm doing something right.



RDD_1210 said:


> Another cry baby who only cares about "how does it affect me", yet doesn't realize that healthcare reform is actually helping you, you're just not smart enough to realize it.



We can talk "cry baby" when I start handing out sob stories and guilt trips like you, Oprah.

Health care reform does nothing for me, punk, for two reasons:  1) I already take care of me and mine, and 2) I'm not such a shiftless, brainless adolescent that I think finding a way to shift responsibility for myself onto others is a benefit.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Cecilie1200 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The names you felt compelled to call me simply because I want to find a way to make sure that people in this country can stay healthy:
1) tweeko
2) sleazebucket
3) Oprah (Lol, really?)
4) Punk
5) brainless adolescent



You seem nice.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> My Bottom line for all of this is:
> 
> If you want national Insurance/health care, then EVERYONE should pay the same. No one gets exemptions.



Will never be able to work this way.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > My Bottom line for all of this is:
> ...




So long as some people want something for nothing, you are very right. So longs as some pay and others don't, you are so right. So long as some people expect the government to care for them cradle to coffin, you are very right. So long as people feel entitled, you are very right.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Another cry baby who only cares about "how does it affect me", yet doesn't realize that healthcare reform is actually helping you, you're just not smart enough to realize it.




You are right. It is the ones who are cry babying "how does it affect me"  "how do i get reform to help me" are the ones who want something for nothing.  They just don't realize it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


That's the cruix of the biscuit - people think they are entitled to healt care that they do not have to pay for - that they deserve to have their health care psid for by someone else.

These people vote for those that promise exactly that.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > My Bottom line for all of this is:
> ...


hence why it's not viable, and therefore even the theory should be abandoned before we waste any more time on this abject failure.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Nah, I just meant you're severely flawed "logic". I use that term very loosely.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

> aim to lower costs.


But cannot succeed because economic realities thwart it.



> The waiver is needed to ensure that short term costs don't sky rocket  for these companies or their access isn't cut off completely due to lack  of time needed in order to get up to standard.



You just watch, it will be extended.  This is how things work.  First the nose under the tent, then if not stopped the whole camel comes in.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



And i feel you are the one with the severely flawed 'logic"  

So can i send you my medical bills and call it a day? I want someone to pay for my medical bills to ya know. Since you think its such a great idea to pay for others out of your pocket, how about you start to practice what you preach.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> The names you felt compelled to call me simply because I want to find a way to make sure that people in this country can stay healthy:




And every solution you claim to find absolves the very people you want to save from responsibility in achieving that goal, which is why they are all doomed to fail and why Obamacare is doomed to fail People learn through experience and what people will learn from you is there is little connection between the choices they make and the cost of their health care.


----------



## xotoxi (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.



Where would these doctors live?  What would they eat?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



That's what you don't seem to be getting. I pay for insurance coverage which means I already do pay for the healthcare of everyone who can't afford it. This is obviously going right over your head.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > The names you felt compelled to call me simply because I want to find a way to make sure that people in this country can stay healthy:
> ...



And you still seem to think that the only people who don't have healthcare coverage are people who just aren't working hard enough.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



We get it, you don't care if working americans suffer simply because they can no longer afford health insurance.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

xotoxi said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > It would be more efficient for the government to open low cost hospitals and clinics. Require doctors that are still paying off their loans to man them for free.
> ...



I think a sift a week out of them is reasonable to ask at some free clinic. The rest of the time they can work and pay off their loan.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


And those of us who don't have health insurance and have to pay cash out of our own pockets or by payment plan don't??? 

Come the fuck on!  let's not be TOTALLY intellectually disingenuous.  Deadbeats raise the cost of healthcare.  And since Medicare has a tendancy to pay less than private insurance, they're even bigger deadbeats than the insurance industry you seem to have a strong distaste for.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Just remember, Rush Limbaugh himself admits he does not pay for health insurance.  He pays cash too just like us sad uninsured poor people.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Trust me i DO get it..very well. I pay for my insurence. AND i know the reason it is so high is due to the ones who want medical but dont pay or it. I DO! 

Any public system is just the same. obama care is the same. Some will pay and the majority will not.  The ones who pay into it will ALSO pay for the ones who are not. 

What part of everyone paying  the same, without exception, don't you get?  You continue to fall back on "what about the ones who cant afford it". So tell me what changes? It will STILL be a system where some pay and the entitlement masses STILL don't. 

The only change is that MY options are lessened. My expenses go up and my service goes down. The other change is that the entitlement masses get more for still paying nothing. 

The head that all of this is going over is yours .


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Why should they have to work for free at all, especially if you don't feel that you should be helping out?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Ive never said that the entitled masses don't _need _care now have i? 

It was a suggested solution to your entitlement problem. I guess you don't want that now do you.

Fine back to square one. 


If you want health care and insurance...PAY for it.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



LOL, what does that prove? He has more money than 99.9% of Americans. Good for him.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


Why do you think she MUST help?  Why is your bleeding heart connected to her bank account?

You forget yourself.  It's not your money.  It's not THEIR money.  It's HER money, and she can do with it as she pleases.

Why aren't you giving every penny you have to someone else if you feel so strongly?  Oh that's right, because it's easier and more profitable to steal from many others than pony up your own dough.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


That's right.  Good for him.  But under Obamacare he would be forced to buy a product he neither needs or wants or be subject to legal action.

How ethical is that?  He's providing no burden to the medical industry now and suddenly he must?

Fucking stupid is what that is.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



So those people that don't have health insurance are paying for chemo and bypass surgery through payment plans? lol.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



So you're complaining about the mandate because Rush Limbaugh shouldn't have to buy insurance since he can afford to go without it? Seriously??? lol.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I'm not the one who suggested that Doctors work for free. What's your point exactly?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


I'm paying right now for over 6000 in tests forced on me by the state in payment plans.

It's very possible that it can be paid for as well the same way.  But if you want to try and play triviality search, do that on your own damn time with someone who gives a fuck.  The exceptions do not invalidate the rule.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Wait, so you don't have health insurance? Do I have that right?


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




Heh, i asked him a few posts back if i could send him my medical bills so that he could pay them out of his pocket. Shocker, no response.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


I'm resisting because it is unconstitutional and pisses me off that if I refuse I can be JAILED for not buying health insurance I can't afford either in increased taxes, which is inevitable, or reduced cash flow.  There are far better ways that have been put up here than Obamacare that are far cheaper and starve government power.

But we all really know that's what you really want:  Total government control from cradle to grave... as long as it's not YOUR grave or anyone elses you care about.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


The fuck does that matter to you?  It's none of your business if I do or don't, but that's correct I don't.  The point is I don't want national healthcare administering my medical care... EVER.

Oh, and just as an elaboration, I was informed that all but the most highly priced insurance plans covered the tests I was forced, by law, to take to continue working.  So even with an insurance plan I could have afforded, they wouldn't have been covered either.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



The point is he doesn't need or want it. BUT the ones who are not paying for shit need and want *his* *money*.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Ohhh, so if you need a payment plan to pay off $6000 how the hell are you going to pay off a 100k+ or very often much more in medical bills? Payment plan until you're 250 years old? LMAO!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> And you still seem to think that the only people who don't have healthcare coverage are people who just aren't working hard enough.



Some don't by choice. Others don't due to a lack of money. Those are teh people we are trying to help. Why don't these people have money? Everyone who doesn't have money bares at least some responsibility for not having money. You can not change what you don't acknowledge. You can not become wealthy until you identify your role in why you're not wealthy. That is the quintessential problem with you liberals. Your situation is NEVER your fault. Its always someone else and thus always someone elses job to fix it for you. 

You don't get it. I want those people to have health care too. The difference between the two of us, even though we agreed your health care should be your financial responsibility is that your advocating of Obamacare and these subsidized insurance plans is a further disinsentive for people to do exactly that. You're basically telling peope, just show us you're poor enough and we'll get someone else to pay for it. Well if I'm poor and my goal is to get myself some health care coverage, what course of action am I likely to take. The most efficient one of course which under your plan is to do basically nothing.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




No, i am paying for it. Just as i would be paying for it under obama care. So nothing changes. I pay for those that don't.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Ahhh, and there it is. "I guess you just aren't working hard enough". "What the hell is wrong with you. If you wanted insurance you should just go buy it." "You lazy, moocher."

I love the irony of this all. 

Oh and you're welcome in advance.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 The irony is that he is not siding with you in wanting something for nothing. 

The irony is that he is still saying that if you want something...pay for it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


wait... you are thinking that's some sort of victory of the debate?

Jesus you're a fucking retard.

What the hell do you think you've 'won'?  The fact that I'm going to be forced onto Obamacare?  oh that REALLY proves your point nimrod.  

You know what's stopping me from buying my own health insurance right now?

State MANDATES!  I have to get depression coverage, and rosacea coverage, and pregancy coverage (nice seeing I'm a guy), and abortion coverage, and port-wine stain removal coverage, and substance abuse treatment coverage.

over 100 mandated required coverages that I DON"T NEED, dumbass!  And that raises the price.  Then they limit the pool of companies I can choose from since you can't sell insurance across state lines, OR go 'a la carte' picking the coverage I want.  That raises the price even MORE!  Have you ever shopped for personal health care yourself?  I have twice in recent years and it SUCKS!

I asked for simple catastrophic healthcare with the highest premium possible.  Because of state mandates, I couldn't get the price down low enough for me to buy.  Therefore, I've been excluded from purchasing a product due to state interference when I could have paid cash for a simple policy covering a car accident or sudden disease or the like.

there's your fucking government care.  They want me to get on state medicare programs so they can mooch more money from out of state and then tell me to jump through hoops the rest of my life till they get bored with me and cut my ass off, just like I've watched another friend of mine who died from Sarcoidosis had done to her.  Well, they were kind.  they shuffled her into a nursing home to die in drugged out painless stupor, all but a vegetable.

So fuck you, your government healthcare, the horse you rode in on and have one for the road with prickly pears.  You don't know SHIT about how it REALLY works!  Sanctimonious self-righteous asshole.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > And you still seem to think that the only people who don't have healthcare coverage are people who just aren't working hard enough.
> ...



It almost sounds like you're jealous of people who are dirt ass poor. Some of them are lazy fucks who aren't worth the air they breathe, but like it or not they will get sick and they will show up at a hospital that I will have to pay for through raised insurance rates. I'd rather pay less by just helping to subsidize their care before it gets out of hand in terms of cost. Nothing will probably make these people motivated enough not to be poor, but I can at least pay less for their care, which I know I will be paying for one way or another. 

And then that doesn't take in to account all the other people who do work hard, who do want to make a better life but just can't make ends meet and afford health coverage. Look at Big Fitz for example. I don't think he's in the broke ass poor group, but he doesn't have healthcare coverage. Is that because he isn't working hard enough? I doubt it, but maybe he can tell us different. Big Fitz, are you not working as hard as you can?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



LOL, what happens when he needs medical attention that costs 20k, 50k, 100k? I guarantee he won't lie on his couch and just say, well I don't have the money to afford this procedure, I'll just lay here and die. He'll seek treatment that he can't afford and that I will end up paying for through increased rates.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


And that's who's fault for making it too expensive?

Oh that's right...

The government's.

Dipshit.  This is why you have no credibility.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Ouch, looks like I hit a nerve. Kinda sucks when your hypocritical views get pointed out, doesn't it? 

If you can't afford health insurance you obviously are a deadbeat who isn't working hard enough. Do I have that right? LOL.

I noticed you didn't tell me how you planned to pay for treatment if you actually had something serious happen to you. F'ing amazing how hypocritical you are.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Health insurance costs have been rising for years. That was the governments fault??? LMAO!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> It almost sounds like you're jealous of people who are dirt ass poor. Some of them are lazy fucks who aren't worth the air they breathe, but like it or not they will get sick and they will show up at a hospital that I will have to pay for through raised insurance rates. I'd rather pay less by just helping to subsidize their care before it gets out of hand in terms of cost. Nothing will probably make these people motivated enough not to be poor, but I can at least pay less for their care, which I know I will be paying for one way or another.



But that gets back to the logistics of it RDD. It isn't just there premiums you will have to pay for. You will have to pay for the government beauracracy of figuring out who doesn't make enough to purchase health insurance. Maybe subsidization sounds nice on the surface but it is rather evident you haven't even begun to think about what such a system would look like in reality. 



RDD_1210 said:


> And then that doesn't take in to account all the other people who do work hard, who do want to make a better life but just can't make ends meet and afford health coverage. Look at Big Fitz for example. I don't think he's in the broke ass poor group, but he doesn't have healthcare coverage. Is that because he isn't working hard enough? I doubt it, but maybe he can tell us different. Big Fitz, are you not working as hard as you can?



And that's the part that people need to examine about themselvs. It is not about how hard you work. I don't care if you put in 80 hours a week. If it's 80 hours a week at McDonalds or some min wage job, you're still not going to be able to afford health care. It's about working smart. It's a bigger picture and about understanding the skills you as an individual are going to need to cultivate to navigate life and afford a certain standard of living, part of which being your health care costs. Now I don't think I said anything horribly irrational there. But one thing you can not do as society is expect it to become stronger by creating dissinsentives to being personally responsibile. 

Think about it. There is no other service we treat this way. There isn't a single other product or service out there where we say 'even though you can't pay for this thing or service you need, we'll give it to you anyway. In fact as long as you can show us you can't pay we promise it's free'. Do you think you would realy need to mandate that people buy health insurance if everyone understood they were on the hook for the bill no matter what? And as far as reducing costs the best way to get their is for financial transactions between patient and doctor to be more direct.  If any reguation needs to be done it needs to be on the order of promoting personal responsibility for your own health care. Policy that gives people more options including the option to pay physicians directly when possible. I agree with Fitz in that sense. The avg. person ought to be able to pay for routine medical care without using insurance at all. And if we could get to a point that that was possible the cost of services would indeed go down. Hell you can already get a better deal in most cases on services dealing directly with hospitals. They don't want to deal with insurance companies anymore than you do. 

The problem with Obamacare is it doesn't encourage any of those things. It isn't just that it doesn't do a very good job of achieving the goals you and I both agree on. It's that in a lot fo cases it will be down right detrimental to the system.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > It almost sounds like you're jealous of people who are dirt ass poor. Some of them are lazy fucks who aren't worth the air they breathe, but like it or not they will get sick and they will show up at a hospital that I will have to pay for through raised insurance rates. I'd rather pay less by just helping to subsidize their care before it gets out of hand in terms of cost. Nothing will probably make these people motivated enough not to be poor, but I can at least pay less for their care, which I know I will be paying for one way or another.
> ...



Hey I'm all for cutting insurance companies out all together but that is such a drastic overhaul that really would not help at all with the immediate needs we needed to address in our healthcare system. We built up and created a shitty cyclical system that needs MAJOR overhaul. If we could scrape the whole thing and start from scratch that would be great, but in reality that's just not feasible in todays world. That leaves us with makeshift solutions to cure immediate problems.....which is alot of what this legislation aims to do, as imperfect as it may be. 

You're right though, there is no other industry/service we treat this way and the only reason I support this is because we're dealing with peoples lives and well being here. I am all for private business and making a buck, but people are suffering needlessly and it's affecting the rest of us who still can pay.


----------



## WillowTree (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Do you even have a job? You are on here non stop, either you are unemployed or ripping off your employer big time. what a moron.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What part of obamacare dont you get. It is the same thing.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



AND he said he is paying for his test...in payments.


----------



## boedicca (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> LOL, what happens when he needs medical attention that costs 20k, 50k, 100k? I guarantee he won't lie on his couch and just say, well I don't have the money to afford this procedure, I'll just lay here and die. He'll seek treatment that he can't afford and that I will end up paying for through increased rates.




This is because health care consists of finite goods and services.  When they are promoted as a free entitlement, somebody else is expected to pay for them.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



What if his bill is for 100k? Payment plan still?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

> Ouch, looks like I hit a nerve. Kinda sucks when your hypocritical views  get pointed out, doesn't it?



No... this is called exasperation at your utter stupidity and arrogance.

Good to have it confirmed you are fucking clueless about how things work in the real world and can only handle simple theories that don't mesh with what's really going on.


----------



## Intense (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why can't we all ride on Amtrak any where we want any time we want for free. How about the Subway's and Bus'es? How long do you think they would hold up to abuse and misuse? Could we fly anywhere for free? How long before the jets start falling from the skies? You make something an entitlement, and you are ripe for abuse, nothing more. We have enough problems with Hypochondriacs without encouraging them. I don't think Everyone has a right to a $500 or $5000 band-Aid. I personally don't think anyone should pay government protected exorbitant prices. I'm Sure GE, and the rest of the Monopoly Oligarchy, Plutocracy disagree with me. Why do you encourage this behavior?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

> What if his bill is for 100k? Payment plan still?



Check with the hypothetical land hospital.  Maybe see what payment schedule and discounts they can set up.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


You have no idea how the world works.  Hence you've destroyed your credibility and proven you've no concept of unintended consequences of do gooders run amok in government.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




Seems to me as if he is still willing to pay. I was under the impression that you felt that some should not pay?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > What if his bill is for 100k? Payment plan still?
> 
> 
> 
> Check with the hypothetical land hospital.  Maybe see what payment schedule and discounts they can set up.



LOL, ok. Tell me what how on earth you will pay off 100k. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you won't be charged interest. Go ahead, how many payments and how much per payment do you think it will take to get paid off? Let's hear the big plan. This should be fucking priceless. Go ahead when you're ready, I need a good laugh.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



<right wing talking point>LOL, freeloader. Please work harder and stop being a leech on society. You could have insurance if you weren't such a deadbeat and made some actual good decisions with you life.</right wing talking point>


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



He should pay if he can. But he CANNOT afford $100k+ in medical bills if he has anything serious happen to him. What wasn't clear?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > What if his bill is for 100k? Payment plan still?
> ...


I'm not playing your Alinskyite hypothetical games. 

How about you answer the OP.  How much should health care cost?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jan 31, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Health care should cost whatever the market will bear.
> The best way to reduce the cost of health care is for the consumer pay for the costs himself.



Exactly.
Group health care paid for by insurance companies as a benefit has ruined American "health" care.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



LOL, I knew it. You're pathetic and have no answer to the point I've been making this entire thread. 

Game, Set, Match.

"Pathetic Freeloader"


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


I've taken not a dime of government money.  I've paid my own bill.  How am I a freeloading dipshit?  You wanna play hypotheticals, do it on your own time.

What are you?  In high school?  I can't concieve why you're so goddamn dumb.

What if a passing surgeon splits your skull with a spade and puts a new brain in?  What if a meteor hits tomorrow?  What if you manage to unclench your sphincter long enough to pull your head out?

I give a real world example... Several of them in fact, and you wanna try and twist them around to be something they're not.  Grow the fuck up.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



 You are a riot. 

So what part of me saying for obama care that everyone pays the same thing didn't you get? If everyone is paying what it would take to sustain a system, NO exceptions, it could work. So long as you have some who want something for nothing it will never work.

it seems to me as if he is not asking for something for nothing now does it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...








yet another presumptive declaration of victory.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Awwww, someone doesn't have it all figured out anymore, so he resorts to name calling. And I'm guessing a high schooler has already accomplished more than you ever will, especially since you can't even afford health insurance.....how lazy and sad you are.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


The best part is that when Obamacare bankrupts this nation in less than 5 years, nobody will have health care regardless of money or political connection.

Damn unintended consequences of fiscal irresponsibility, socialism and statism.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Everyone doesn't and shouldn't pay the same, it's impossible. It's not what this legislation is about. You can't bleed money from someone that just doesn't have it. That's where you say, fuck em, let em die and I say let's help subsidize their healthcare insurance rather then let them go to the ER without insurance and run up a bigger bill.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


Got no answers either.  Just blind faith in government.  Pathetic.  

I wanna be cattle!  I wanna be cattle!  Moo moo moo!

Mommy gubmint's gonna take care of aaaall my boo boos and powder my bottom because I'm an incompetant moron who is too scared to stand up for myself and take personal responsibility for my life.

Moo Moo Moo.

Ding Fries Are Done! :: American Angst ::


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



Hmmm, I actually pay for my own insurance. You're welcome for the care that I will one day subsidize for you.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Fiscal responsibility? Coming from the guy who can't afford health insurance and needs a payment plan to pay off $6000. Obviously you've got a lock on how to budget money.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




So again, to bad so sad. The legestions is about giving people a huge amount of funding ..for nothing. It is about forcing people to pay into a system they do not want and will not use. Just as  in the UK and Canada, they have public health care and people still pay separately for private insurance over and above the public which they dont use. I am not interested in paying for health care twice.  

Find a free clinic to take care of your problems. Subsidizing someone to have the ability to abuse a system is bull shit. So i am for the ER costs. AND that is on a triage system. If its not a true emergency they get turned away from the ER and sent to a clinic.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



For the 87th time, it's not for nothing. It's to save the rest of us money. You aren't even making sense anymore. Don't even respond to me anymore, talking to you is pointless. At least Bern80 is somewhat reasonable and BigFitz is a walking hypocrite and makes me laugh. You're just f'ing weird and I honestly can't figure out what the hell tangent you are talking about half the time. Just so you know I won't be responding much to you anymore.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I feel the same about what you are saying. It makes no sense. You seem to be the only one having trouble understanding what i am saying though. Go figure that.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


Fair enough. We can agree to disagree then.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Hey I'm all for cutting insurance companies out all together but that is such a drastic overhaul that really would not help at all with the immediate needs we needed to address in our healthcare system. We built up and created a shitty cyclical system that needs MAJOR overhaul. If we could scrape the whole thing and start from scratch that would be great, but in reality that's just not feasible in todays world. That leaves us with makeshift solutions to cure immediate problems.....which is alot of what this legislation aims to do, as imperfect as it may be.



So that's something else we agree on. And we agree probably government doesn't like to take drastic changes, okay fine. But how about changes that at least get us going in the right direction. Come on RDD, in both of our perfect worlds people wouldn't have to rely on health insurance companies for everything. That is why it flabergasts the hell out of me how you can support in any way a bill that makes the very thing we are trying to fix, so much worse. 

We want less dependence on insurance companies, this bill makes people more dependent on them. 

If we do want health insurance in some form we want to have more options, the regulation in obamacare about what employers have to offer makes for fewer options. 

If there is to be an insurance component to our system, we would like it be affordable, yet requiring insurance companies to charge the same thing for pre-existing conditions as those without will only drive up the cost of premiums. The fact that 700+ businesses are filing waivers to keep their cost of permiums down is PROOF that the cost of insurance is going to go up as a direct result of this bill.

We want services to cost less so that maybe we can move toward a way where people can pay for them directly. This bill doesn't address this at all and will probably actually increase the cost of services.


Those are all the backwards steps this bill takes in some ass backwards attempt to cover those that can't afford it which we both agree needs to be done in some form or other. I don't know that I've ever seen a bill where the addage about government solving problems applies more. The more they try to fix things, the more they fuck it up.




RDD_1210 said:


> You're right though, there is no other industry/service we treat this way and the only reason I support this is because we're dealing with peoples lives and well being here. I am all for private business and making a buck, but people are suffering needlessly and it's affecting the rest of us who still can pay.



And again you have to look at the forest for the trees. NOTHING is more important than individual liberty and as Franklin said, those that would give a little freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security. Yes it's important to reform our system and do a better job at helping those that can't help themselves. You do that by giving people incentives to do just that. This bill does the opposite and tramples the constitution in its attempt to so. NOTHING is so important that you sacrafice the freedom of the many for the sake of the few. Especially when there are better ways of doing it that need not make such a sacrifice to liberty.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why don't they just go to the doctor and set up a payment plan with him?  He'll charge a lot less for treating the flu or strep throat or an ear infection than an ER would.  They also get lots of drug samples they can pass along.  

Why shouldn't everyone pay the same?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey I'm all for cutting insurance companies out all together but that is such a drastic overhaul that really would not help at all with the immediate needs we needed to address in our healthcare system. We built up and created a shitty cyclical system that needs MAJOR overhaul. If we could scrape the whole thing and start from scratch that would be great, but in reality that's just not feasible in todays world. That leaves us with makeshift solutions to cure immediate problems.....which is alot of what this legislation aims to do, as imperfect as it may be.
> ...



Believe me I HATE that we not only didn't take power away from insurance companies, but instead gave them more customers and more power. Despite what some people in this thread might think, I don't 100% love this bill. I think it could have been MUCH better. However I really don't see any other options that would viable (and get enough votes) to make the amount of difference that this bill will make for many people. Yes, there are big negatives with this bill, but the positives it does bring are good enough for me, for now to enact it and fix it as we go.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Paying the same is a nice thought but can't work. But let's say we try it, how much should everyone pay?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I have no idea.  You're the one saying that's impossible.  Why?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Jan 31, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



Because if you set it high enough to make it sustainable it will be too expensive for the poor. If you make it cheap enough for even the poorest to be able to afford it, it wouldn't be a sustainable system.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > > What if his bill is for 100k? Payment plan still?
> ...



Hospitals do not charge interest on their bills.  They are not lending institutions, and there are laws governing the collection of debts.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Why don't they knock all the stuff out of insurance plans that add unnecessary cost for those who don't need that specific coverage?  Big Fitz listed many services he doesn't need but because they are included (mandated by the states I think he said), it makes the cost too high to afford.  Why aren't things like pre-natal or depression or whatever optional?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



YOU are going to accuse someone else of resorting to name-calling?  YOU?!  Who was it who immediately resorted to "you're a bad person, you want people to die" in place of any real argument as to why the rest of us should be obligated to care for total strangers?  I distinctly recall YOU being the first person to bring attacks on people's character into the debate.

Not only are you self-righteous, smug, and greedy, but NOW you're a hypocrite, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Forget it, asshole.  You want to make paying for other people's health care an obligation?  You just eliminated any need for those people to thank you or be grateful to you.  Why should they?  You OWE them.  How DARE you be such a greedy, selfish prick as to act like you're doing something special that deserves thanks?  Shut your hole and get back to work, drone.

Although it's particularly funny to see you demanding gratitude from someone who didn't want what you forced him to take in the first place.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



 Because they don't want to pay anything, that is the point. Hell, i don't want to pay anything either, but life sucks.


----------



## syrenn (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




And there it is. 

Public health care is unsustainable. 

That is unless you get "the rich" and not so "rich"  to subsidize the poor.  Finally you see the light.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 31, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> Believe me I HATE that we not only didn't take power away from insurance companies, but instead gave them more customers and more power. Despite what some people in this thread might think, I don't 100% love this bill. I think it could have been MUCH better. However I really don't see any other options that would viable (and get enough votes) to make the amount of difference that this bill will make for many people. Yes, there are big negatives with this bill, but the positives it does bring are good enough for me, for now to enact it and fix it as we go.



And you simply can not look at things that way and expect to maintain your freedom or have system that accomplishes its goals. It isn't even clear how these people who can't get insurance will get that insurance. This 'let's get these few million people covered no matter the cost financially or to liberty' is just stupid. You may think the cost to you financially and to your liberty is worth it to cover those few million people. To me it isn't. And you can beat your, 'well I guess I'm the compassionate one' drum till your blue in the face. Breeding depedence on government is not compassion. Simply continuing to give people things through tax payer dollars while expecting nothing of them is not compassion. All you are deciding is in what manor are your health care costs going to rise. Are they going to rise to pay for people to be treated at the ER, or are they going to rise as a result of even more regulation on the insurance industry. That you got the one miniscule thing you wanted out of this bill and could give to shits less about what we all will have to give up as a result and how inefficiently it was accomplished and don't even won't even entertain a better way of doing it is truly scary. I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but you STILL aren't seeing the forest for the trees.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


Pwnd himself with one sentence.  Told ya RDD.  You don't understand how things REALLY work and think good intentions gives intrinsic value when it doesn't.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



This is the second time I've asked this of RDD and the second time he hasn't answered.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD said:
			
		

> It's not what this legislation is about.



Once again, intentions =/= reality.

For instance.  I intend to eat a salad, but instead get a jumbo rack of ribs with a side order of gravy fries.  My cholesterol should know what my intentions are and therefore be lower.

I doubt even you miss the fault to this thinking... But I've been wrong about your intelligence, or lack thereof, before.



> You can't bleed money from someone that just doesn't have it.



And the poor have no right to the money which others have.  If the rich feel obligated to help, it is charity and is the soul of kindness.  But when you essentially stick the gun of the police in their face (for to resist, that is what WILL happen) and say 'gimme cause I need' (even if you call it taxation) it's still theft.  Good to know you're so morally defunct that this doesn't bother you.



> That's where you say, fuck em, let em die



Find the quote, you fucking liar. Where did me, or Syrenn, or Bern, or Cecille say 'fuck em and let em die'.  You are ASSuming again.



> and I say let's help subsidize their healthcare insurance rather then  let them go to the ER without insurance and run up a bigger bill.



Since the government is living off of borrowed and (essentially) counterfeited money through excessive printing, where, praytell is this money going to come from?  With our current debt level, deficit and overspending BEFORE Obamacare, are bankrupt.  They just haven't come to take the economic body away yet.  So what are we going to subsidize with?  Fairy Sprinkles?

You've no clue about what's going on in the world and seem to be under the assumption that health care is an insulated, isolated independent aspect of the world and that nothing else out there has any impact on how the mechanics and logistics of this all come together.  I think it's time to shut your sphincter.  You're stinking up the joint.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> Coming from the guy who can't afford health insurance and needs a  payment plan to pay off $6000.



The fact that I am working poor, and cannot just pay 6 grand out of my petty cash boosts your ego?  What an arrogant fuck you are.  You're the kinda guy who'd laugh at poor people breaking their leg, wouldn't you?  And cheer if they were rich.  Way to illustrate your lack of character you sanctimonious hypocrite.  Oh here we must help the poor and treat them good and coddle them.  Then when confronted with one who IS poor an not begging for a hand out from you, you attack him.  Well fuck you very much Emily Post.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why, joe taxpayer of course.

Obamacare Packs Crushing New Taxes


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...


yep.  Deadbeat Crisis... not a health care crisis.  And I'll bet dollars to donuts that this idiot would file for every exemption and every tax break he could find (assuming he actually isn't some trust fund fuck who's had someone else already do that) so he didn't have to fund the poor's healh care.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD said:
> ...



or Obama's stash.
Just not him.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


And at least economics back you up Syrenn.  This dipshit has long passed into Rdeantopia.


----------



## TeaPartyLogo (Feb 1, 2011)

Here's the fundamental problem:

Left to their own devices, a great many people will not get any kind of health care insurance. They will claim they can't afford it. 

But if there is one thing I've learned, it's that people find a way to afford what they want to afford. So they buy more car than they can afford and rent or buy more house than they can afford.

But they don't "want" to afford health insurance, even though they will most definitely need care at some point. Doctors and hospitals won't deny them that care even if they can't pay. So the rest of us end up paying these people's health expenses via higher insurance and medical care costs. 

How do we get people to be responsible for their own health care? 

Maybe insurance should only be available for major medical expenses. Anything else is self-pay at the time service is rendered, with ability to pay verified before care is given. No pay, no service. Just like other types of business.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Feb 1, 2011)

I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> Believe me I HATE that we not only didn't take power away from insurance  companies, but instead gave them more customers and more power.



Getting down to brass tacks here.  Anti-capitalist hatred is at the core of RDD's desire to have national healthcare.



> However I really don't see any other options that would viable (and get  enough votes) to make the amount of difference that this bill will make  for many people.



REALLY?  You've not been paying attention then.  Whatta surprise.

1. End state and federal mandates on insurance.  Let people pick the type of coverage they want just like car, homeowners and life insurance.

2. Force open pricing by all medical agencies and facilities for all treatments so people may comparison sop.

3. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines increasing the size of the pool of competition.

4. End restrictions on separating medical facilities from what is currently called "insurance".

5. End tax exemptions to businesses that pay employees insurance but give it to the individual account holder.

6. End commercial pharmaceutical advertising.  Since that prohibition was ended in 1994, prices have increased over 300% for drugs and development while advertising budgets shot through the roof increasing drug costs.

7. Institute 'loser pays' tort reform.  This ends frivolent lawsuits and ambulance chasers that force facilities to practice "defensive mediine".

8.BAN all federal government provision or administration of health care with the only exception being for active military personnel.  Veterans must seek private care.

9. BAN federal tax dollars from being spent on health care related subsidation.  this includes privatization of Medicare and medicaid on the federal level.  Seek private companies to take over and administer these programs.

10.  End all subsidies to health industry related businesses and individuals.  Offer tax incentives to private individuals to give to health care charities.

There are ten simple suggestions that increase accessibility, lower prices, foster competition, protect both hospitals and consumers an shrink the size of government and increase giving to private charities.  These are economically sound concepts too, because you are taking money away from government waste, putting it in the hands of profit run industry who has to do good business to stay in business.  This grows the economy and starves wasteful bureaucracy and fosters new product through competition all the while, lowering prices for the consumer.

What's not to like...? unless you're some sort of socialist or fascist.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.








face it, you pwned yourself.  Admitted your solution is an abject failure and now are whining that nobody's baffled at your bullshit.  About time you achieved conscious thought long enough to realize your philosophy lost.  So to that I say:


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

TeaPartyLogo said:


> How do we get people to be responsible for their own health care?
> 
> Maybe insurance should only be available for major medical expenses. Anything else is self-pay at the time service is rendered, with ability to pay verified before care is given. No pay, no service. Just like other types of business.



That is certainly something I would like to see. It would most definatley lower the cost of services and open up competition in the insurance industry. But this bill simply isn not going to allow that to happen. This bill does not reform our health care system for the better. The bitter reality for people like RDD is that it fucks over the many to save the few. He thinks it's worth it. I don't. 

How do you get people to be more responsible? You allow there to be negative consequences for not doing so. Certianly an insurance mandate would do that. Unfortunately the fed requiring people to buy something is unconstitutional and sets a pretty dangerous precedent jeopardizing personal liberty. That few seem to care about that is pretty alarming. So what's the next best option? How about another way of holding people legally accountable? Make it illegal to not pay for services rendered. If you can't pay for services, you work out a payment plan. If you have to spend the rest of your life paying it off, so be it.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> Maybe insurance should only be available for major medical expenses.



Before the Great Society 'malforms' that's what it was for.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.



The only thing scarier RDD is someone who is supposedly educated, which I assume means at least took a basic economics class, and thinks this bill will provide more options and lower costs for consumers.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> TeaPartyLogo said:
> 
> 
> > How do we get people to be responsible for their own health care?
> ...





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bern80 again.


Just like I did.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Coming from the guy who can't afford health insurance and needs a  payment plan to pay off $6000.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I am working poor, and cannot just pay 6 grand out of my petty cash boosts your ego?  What an arrogant fuck you are.  You're the kinda guy who'd laugh at poor people breaking their leg, wouldn't you?  And cheer if they were rich.  Way to illustrate your lack of character you sanctimonious hypocrite.  Oh here we must help the poor and treat them good and coddle them.  Then when confronted with one who IS poor an not begging for a hand out from you, you attack him.  Well fuck you very much Emily Post.



RDD and company only like poor people when they're contributing to their Mother Theresa complex.  Poor people who insist on having self-respect are just useless to them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2011)

TeaPartyLogo said:


> Here's the fundamental problem:
> 
> Left to their own devices, a great many people will not get any kind of health care insurance. They will claim they can't afford it.
> 
> ...



You stop making it possible for them to take a free ride on other people's coattails.

I'm not saying refuse them services, but bill their stupid asses for the services.  And frankly, if people had to be responsible for the medical bills, instead of having a third party pay them where they never even SEE how much things cost, the prices would go way down.  Ever notice how optional medical services, like laser eye surgery, cosmetic surgery, etc. drop in price drastically after the first year they're on the market, and then compete with each other with lower prices, sales, etc.?  That's because they know the patients actually care about the cost because it's out of their own pockets.  When the insurance company, or the government, is covering it and people never see the bill, it's easy to gouge and inflate.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.



Nice try, fucktard.  I guess when the facts refuse to support you, it's easier to just make up your own than to admit you're full of shit and lost the argument.

And I'm pretty sure we've all seen the lack of common sense, the blatant hypocrisy, and the need to repeat bullshit.  After all, we've been reading your posts.

Scamper, poltroon.  Run away with your tail between your legs.  Just don't believe that you've fooled anyone into thinking it's anything but a rout.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > TeaPartyLogo said:
> ...



Hopefully at some point people will get the hint that they need to take responsibiity for their health care costs, which translates into taking repsonsibility for their lives. The further you remove the direct financial impact of choices from a person, the less respsonsible that person will be. That's how governmet does things unfortunately. It discourges respsonsible behavior all around. From those they take from to pay others. Why should I be responsible if government will just handle it for me if I'm not? Why should i be responsible if government is just going to take from me when I am?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

Zoom-boing said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom-boing said:
> ...



 LOL, Ive asked if he wants to pay for my medical bill. So far, no offer of picking up the tab.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.




Feel better about yourself now? A bit more superior perhaps? Found a _taller_ soap box maybe?


----------



## Zoom-boing (Feb 1, 2011)

RDD_1210 said:


> I have to remind myself that on this site, I am dealing with people who are probably not educated beyond high school (if that) and probably never leave the town they live in. I'm guessing you aren't required to use your brain in whatever job you do (if you work at all) and your ability to think critically suffers as a result. Your repeated lack of common sense, the inability to see the blatant hypocrisy and the need to repeat the same tired bullshit lines about your freedom being taken away over and over again put it all back in to perspective for me. I have no interest in continuing this thread as I've probably already stuck around too long. Good luck with your lives.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

urdrwho said:


> Smarterthanhick you are a real case.  Narcissist comes to mind.  It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence.  People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children.  Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words.   So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true.  Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning.  Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.
> 
> Obama Care is so good that SEIU has asked for and was granted a waiver.   They are now one of the over 700 applicants granted a waiver from Obama Care.  So believe what you may, SEIU raised 23 million for Obama's election but don't want anything to do with Obama's flagship program - health care.
> 
> ...


Ah I see.  So you are arguing against my evidence supported claims by name-calling.  For someone who seems so fixated on calling other people children, do you realize that mature debate requires refutation instead of third grade attempts at insults?  How sad.  Like Fitz, let me know when you'd like to actually refute facts:
Not all drugs have generics.
Older drugs almost always have worse side effect profiles.



Big Fitz said:


> No.  You've proven too small to bother with.
> 
> I don't debate people who spout lunacy and ignore points, deliberately misconstrue points, peddle intellectually dishonest examples then move the goalposts when busted on it... then claim victory.
> 
> Back to the kiddie pool with you, Dumberthanshit.  This is why I never comment to you in religion threads either.


Yeah you don't debate people who use wikipedia, reputable sources, and verifiable information.  Those things are usually lunacy and misconstrued, right?  Tuck tail and run along now.



Big Fitz said:


> > You - Don't care if other people (working or not) can get access to  healthcare. The solution to the problem is work harder.
> 
> 
> Have the money?  You can access health care.  Don't have the money, there are private charities to help.  Think Shriners Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Ronald McDonald House.  All help people with medical issues and their associated crap becomes If government is administrating, it won't matter if you have money or not.  They say no... you get nothing.


Nothing except healthcare still.  Who do you think is paying for that healthcare that isn't being paid by the patient?  



Big Fitz said:


> By putting politicians and bureaucrats between me and my doctor just like the almost extinct HMOs did?
> 
> By causing doctors to quit the profession, because of the new regulations and lawsuits and decreased pay and restrictions on billing?


You still are clueless about the public option.  Did you even bother to read the wikipedia article?  What evidence do you have that doctors are quitting when medical schools are packed to the brim and only increasing admissions?  Oh right, you don't need that thing called evidence to make up "facts."



Big Fitz said:


> By overloading the system forcing rationing sooner?


You still don't realize we're already rationing.  That's sad.



Big Fitz said:


> National healthcare ruins nations.  England and Canada prove that... and our proposed system is even worse.


Yes, England and Canada are in ruin right now.  Destroyed.  Third world.  What a drama queen.



syrenn said:


> My Bottom line for all of this is:
> 
> If you want national Insurance/health care, then EVERYONE should pay the same. No one gets exemptions.


As opposed to now, where you pay for everyone else who won't pay for themselves.  Right.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > My Bottom line for all of this is:
> ...




You may want to read the thread of our exchanges to understand what i am saying so late in a thread.

There is no difference between obama care and "now" In both systems _those who can pay also will be paying for those how don't. 
_
So again if you want national health care then EVERYONE should pay the same, no exemptions. No more free lunch.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > So those people that don't have health insurance are paying for chemo and bypass surgery through payment plans? lol.
> ...


Certain chemotherapy treatments can cost upwards of ten times your payment plan per session.  Surgical staplers cost $500 each, not to mention the $60 per minute time spent in the OR. It seems like you have a rather poor idea of actual health care costs because you are managing a relatively small one.  

But the fact remains that the rest of society will pay for your healthcare costs as soon as they are too large for you to manage.  Unless you never plan on having surgery or needing an ICU, that is a matter of WHEN and not IF.  



Bern80 said:


> You don't get it. I want those people to have health care too. The difference between the two of us, even though we agreed your health care should be your financial responsibility is that your advocating of Obamacare and these subsidized insurance plans is a further disinsentive for people to do exactly that. You're basically telling peope, just show us you're poor enough and we'll get someone else to pay for it. Well if I'm poor and my goal is to get myself some health care coverage, what course of action am I likely to take. The most efficient one of course which under your plan is to do basically nothing.


I agree with most of what you're saying, but feel you are a little off in your interpretation.  It's hard to dis-incentivize people having taxable jobs that much.  The idea is that the money would come from taxation, meaning the only way to avoid it by being dis-incentivized is to avoid any legitimate job.  



syrenn said:


> No, i am paying for it. Just as i would be paying for it under obama care. So nothing changes. I pay for those that don't.


Exactly right.  So why change things, right?  Well, the fact is that people like Big Fitz who COULD pay for things but don't would buy in, helping himself by avoiding ridiculous payment plans, and you by lowering your costs as well.  You and everyone else with insurance would still be paying for everyone, but you'd have the added help of all the people who are working legal jobs and don't have insurance.



Big Fitz said:


> And that's who's fault for making it too expensive?
> 
> Oh that's right...
> 
> ...


Once again it appears you have a poor concept of where the large bulk of healthcare costs are generated.




Intense said:


> Why can't we all ride on Amtrak any where we want any time we want for free. How about the Subway's and Bus'es? How long do you think they would hold up to abuse and misuse? Could we fly anywhere for free? How long before the jets start falling from the skies? You make something an entitlement, and you are ripe for abuse, nothing more. We have enough problems with Hypochondriacs without encouraging them. I don't think Everyone has a right to a $500 or $5000 band-Aid. I personally don't think anyone should pay government protected exorbitant prices. I'm Sure GE, and the rest of the Monopoly Oligarchy, Plutocracy disagree with me. Why do you encourage this behavior?



As mentioned previously: nightly flights to Paris are not a necessary shared commodity.  Schools are.  So is healthcare.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> urdrwho said:
> 
> 
> > Smarterthanhick you are a real case.  Narcissist comes to mind.  It is not that you have won anyone over with reasoning and evidence.  People get tired of debating with idiots. It is like trying to debate with children.  Children pose such inane ideas that you are presented with nothing to debate, just a lot of words.   So have fun if you think you have won points but it isn't true.  Just like your reasoning was not true but again in your mind, your emotion trumps all reasoning.  Emotion, the base of most liberal views and beliefs.
> ...


Oh boy!  Dumberthanfuck has made his incorrect opinion known again.

To wit, I shall respond with the same quality.







Push harder and you may have a coherent thought... right before you have an embolism.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> So i am for the ER costs. AND that is on a triage system. If its not a true emergency they get turned away from the ER and sent to a clinic.


Syrenn, you make good points but you seem to have quite a few misconceptions, and this is a very common one.  You're thinking about common little things. The cost of an emergency do not end in the ER.  They don't temporarily stabilize patients and then kick them out.  It a patient is only stable because of the treatment they are receiving in the ER, and removing that treatment makes them crash, they don't get discharged.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of patients admitted to the hospital do so through the ER.  

So that drunk driver who racked up $20,000 in the first half hour of being in the trauma bay, perhaps another $150,000 with exploratory surgery, followed by $200,000 of an ICU stay is all cost that cannot be refused by the hospital.  And you've already shown that you know very well who is paying for it.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> Exactly right.  So why change things, right?  Well, the fact is that people like Big Fitz who COULD pay for things but don't would buy in, helping himself by avoiding ridiculous payment plans, and you by lowering your costs as well.  You and everyone else with insurance would still be paying for everyone, but you'd have the added help of all the people who are working legal jobs and don't have insurance.




I agree, more would be paying into the system. People who want nothing to do with the program will also be paying into the system that i am sure will take no part of. There will be more who will be paying nothing again. 

And right along with all of that you are allowing millions access to medical that they did not have access to before. Another program to suck off of, enjoy, and not pay a cent for. Another program to use and abuse and not pay a cent for. 

_My guess _50% would be exempt from payments. Sorry, that does not work for me. If you want the new system PAY for it. Make the payments exactly the same for every. If that is not going to work...then trash the new system. It is more of the same shit we have now.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> If we do want health insurance in some form we want to have more options


This is exactly correct, for the economic reason of more options creating more competition and thus closing the profit margin.  A public option would be another way of artificially creating that end goal, which is why the largest physician group in the US, the AMA, supported it. 

But you're right.  It's just how we get there.  Big Fitz actually listed a few things that also help towards that goal, amongst a sea of ridiculous ideas and denial.


Cecilie1200 said:


> Forget it, asshole.  You want to make paying for other people's health care an obligation?


Too late, we already do.  This seems to be a point that acts as the first litmus test of knowledge on this topic.



Big Fitz said:


> The fact that I am working poor, and cannot just pay 6 grand out of my petty cash boosts your ego?


So you're struggling with $6,000 in medical expenses.  I'm sorry to hear that, but the question that RDD asked is a valid one.  How do you expect to negotiate a bill that is 10 or 100 times that amount?  How do you expect to deal with a single car crash?  Despite your childishness here, I am sorry to hear you are burdened by the healthcare system.  But how do you really expect to deal with something larger?  It sounds like you're barely making it work now, and $6,000 is insignificant compared to serious medical issues.

On that note: do you realize your healthcare costs would have only been about $4000 instead of $6000 if you had insurance?



Big Fitz said:


> Oh boy!  Dumberthanfuck has made his incorrect opinion known again.
> 
> To wit, I shall respond with the same quality.
> 
> ...


Still trying to contradict wikipedia with lolcats and name calling?  How sad.  

Just curious: do you still think your privatized schools are going to be paid for using non-existent tax dollars?  Have you figured out what the public option's objectives were? Do you still think the USDA protects consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation?


----------



## signelect (Feb 1, 2011)

A big part of the problem is the medical cost,  Dr's have become accustomed to huge yearly earning so they adjust the billing to maintain the standard, cost has nothing to do with it.  There is another component,  why do we have to have all the test run.  Lawyers pure and simple, the doctors have to play CYA.  More cost, more profit.  I don't have a solution but I know the answer is that someone is going to pay or you get no care.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > So i am for the ER costs. AND that is on a triage system. If its not a true emergency they get turned away from the ER and sent to a clinic.
> ...




 Not all ER visits by the uninsured are emergencies.  If i had to guess more then 75% are for bullshit. They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh this hurts i want pan meds.  Sorry all of those patients need to be sent elsewhere and refused ER treatment. 

I understand the process of the ER very well as i came from the medical end of things. Your example of the drunk driver is the same for the system now and obama care, if that person is exempt from payments. Therefor the same people will be carrying the burden of cost and thy no payer drunk driver will be paying nothing for the care they are being given. 

How nice the world works out for them. 

So unless everyone pays the same into this system, nothing is changing.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> Still trying to contradict wikipedia with lolcats and name calling?  How  sad.



Start producing links to your 'evidence' then.  I'll be happy to shred it later if it's what I expect you to produce.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> Just curious: do you still think your privatized schools are going to be  paid for using non-existent tax dollars?  Have you figured out what the  public option's objectives were? Do you still think the USDA protects  consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation?



I see.  You just can't let the sting of getting pwned in that thread alone.  Poor baby.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh  this hurts i want pan meds.  Sorry all of those patients need to be sent  elsewhere and refused ER treatment.


Ding!  Exactly.  To a clinic.  CVS pharmacy's "Minute Clinic" handles most small issues like that.  But you have to show up during business hours, and not be trying to scam the system.  Payment is due at time of treatment, but usually costs less than 100 bucks.  ERs are easy to skip out on.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> I agree, more would be paying into the system. People who want nothing to do with the program will also be paying into the system that i am sure will take no part of. There will be more who will be paying nothing again.
> 
> And right along with all of that you are allowing millions access to medical that they did not have access to before. Another program to suck off of, enjoy, and not pay a cent for. Another program to use and abuse and not pay a cent for.
> 
> _My guess _50% would be exempt from payments. Sorry, that does not work for me. If you want the new system PAY for it. Make the payments exactly the same for every. If that is not going to work...then trash the new system. It is more of the same shit we have now.


OK now we're getting some good conversation going.  The question would continually come back to the concern you just expressed: Won't this mean that more people are NOT paying?  I would argue no.  There are just three categories right now: people who are paying for healthcare, people who COULD BE paying but aren't, and people who aren't.  As you can tell, movement would only combine the first two categories, and leave the third mostly unaffected.  We can go into the details of what constitutes people who could be paying but aren't.

So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and set system.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh  this hurts i want pan meds.  Sorry all of those patients need to be sent  elsewhere and refused ER treatment.
> 
> 
> Ding!  Exactly.  To a clinic.  CVS pharmacy's "Minute Clinic" handles most small issues like that.  But you have to show up during business hours, and not be trying to scam the system.  Payment is due at time of treatment, but usually costs less than 100 bucks.  ERs are easy to skip out on.




 It was 11.30 pm. I needed a prescription for antibiotics that would not wait till the Dr's office was open the next day. The ER bill for a prescription and a band aid was 6k. If somewhere was open to have given me the prescription i could have taken care of the band aid myself. 

Damn i should have told them i was a bum.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

signelect said:


> A big part of the problem is the medical cost,  Dr's have become accustomed to huge yearly earning so they adjust the billing to maintain the standard, cost has nothing to do with it.  There is another component,  why do we have to have all the test run.  Lawyers pure and simple, the doctors have to play CYA.  More cost, more profit.  I don't have a solution but I know the answer is that someone is going to pay or you get no care.


Sort of true.  They are used to big earnings and big costs.  Every drug has a certain amount of litigation costs built into it, incase something goes wrong.  Their profit margins aren't as huge as say financial investors or hedge funds (which is about 80% profit)  But they are better than oil company's profit margin (about 8-10%)

You're right about litigation being a major force for increased medical costs.  The FDA costs to test a drug for use in the market is extreme.  Makes the hoops you have to jump through to get a garbage dump or nuclear power plant seem like a walk in the park.  Then you have to have the hospital legal staff, the insurance company's legal staff for malpractice lawsuits and the doctor's legal liabilities.

That is why much of the costs in the US are so high... overuse of lawsuits for profiteering and blackmail of those with deep pockets.  Make it loser pays and cap awards AND legal fees... it would destroy the lawsuit profiteering business and put tens of thousands of lawyers out of a job and force them to do work for a living instead of sue.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

signelect said:


> A big part of the problem is the medical cost,  Dr's have become accustomed to huge yearly earning so they adjust the billing to maintain the standard, cost has nothing to do with it.  There is another component,  why do we have to have all the test run.  Lawyers pure and simple, the doctors have to play CYA.  More cost, more profit.  I don't have a solution but I know the answer is that someone is going to pay or you get no care.


I really don't think you want to go after dr salaries.  The cost of medical school and low cost of training would bankrupt anyone attempting a medical education.



			
				syrenn;3277358[COLOR="Navy" said:
			
		

> Not all ER visits by the uninsured are emergencies.  If i had to guess more then 75% are for bullshit. They need a prescription for this, sprained that, oh this hurts i want pan meds.  Sorry all of those patients need to be sent elsewhere and refused ER treatment.  [/COLOR]


Except that's not the case, and it can't be determined that easily.  As I said, you seem to only be seeing the small things such as nosebleeds and sprained ankles.  Those do NOT make up the bulk of costs.  The person coming in with vague belly pain needs a CT.  Some will get surgery, perhaps to ensure they don't have appendicitis, and 20% of those who do receive surgery will be found to have not actually needed it.  Not because the doctors screwed up, but because the risk of waiting is too dangerous of a possibility.  These patients cannot be sent elsewhere or refused ER treatment.  



Big Fitz said:


> > Still trying to contradict wikipedia with lolcats and name calling?  How  sad.
> 
> 
> 
> Start producing links to your 'evidence' then.  I'll be happy to shred it later if it's what I expect you to produce.


Well, we can start with the link regarding the public option, which you completely botched previously.  Have fun shredding Wikipedia with lolcats. 



Big Fitz said:


> > Just curious: do you still think your privatized schools are going to be  paid for using non-existent tax dollars?  Have you figured out what the  public option's objectives were? Do you still think the USDA protects  consumers against monopolistic insurance inflation?
> 
> 
> 
> I see.  You just can't let the sting of getting pwned in that thread alone.  Poor baby.


Judging by your further avoidance and lack of answer to all questions, I take it that's a no.


So Fitz: how are you going to pay for a major surgery?  How about the ICU stay afterwards?  What would you do given a $200,000 bill?  You are vehemently avoiding answering this, but we all already know what the answer is: you'd have everyone else pay for you.  You are a part of that "deadbeat problem" you continually described.


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, more would be paying into the system. People who want nothing to do with the program will also be paying into the system that i am sure will take no part of. There will be more who will be paying nothing again.
> ...





I understand that part. I don't argue it would be a sweet deal for the working poor. However i believe the VAST majority within the system will be your non paying 1/3. (i think it would be more like the non paying 2/3's however.)

Now a good deal of people (and i am not saying you BF as i dont know your situation) who are the working poor also are entitled to food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. My guess they would still be exempt from payments even though they have jobs. 

You are also not counting all of the children who will be flooding the system. 

So again. The payment needs to be the same for everyone. Every must pay, no exemptions. The payments need to be high enough to sustain a viable system. No system that the burden of payments FORCED onto some and not others will work. It is unsustainable. 

So what is the magic number for a monthly payment? Should there be a payment for each child your have? 

I would think $100 a month would be a SWEETdeal per person including children. So a family with 2 kids is $400 a month. Think that is gonna fly with the working poor?

How about a single mother just scraping by with 4 kids? She has a job and is making it by the skin of her teeth. Think squeezing her for $500 a month will work?


----------



## syrenn (Feb 1, 2011)

SmarterThanHick said:


> syrenn;3277358[COLOR="Navy" said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 I know what comes into the ER. I know there are true emergencies. 

The point is if that person shows up for care and is still a_ non paying leach on the system_.(obamacare).......then nothing has changed at all. They are getting care for NOTHING. They are getting care that those who can pay are shouldering. 

So your working poor who are forced to pay into a system, a system that they didnt pay for before, will now be paying for someone who is not. Now think, if everyone was paying... than that working poor payment would be lower....  


So again everyone should pay the same. No exemptions.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system  simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it  would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a  free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and  set system.



That's the theory.  And we of course run into the brick wall of it's still unconstitutional.  Now a state could make 'universal healthcare' if it wanted to for all it's citizens.  That's constitutional.  

They would have to come up with a system that covered everyone and was paid for as a budget item by the state taxes.  Now, the state spending would jump.  All these medical bills now flow into the public treasury and have to be paid.  Government spending would jump accordingly.  Now, let's say the state cant raise taxes (either the governor or legislature won't pass it, or they'd face a tax rebellion).  They now have a budget shortfall.  How are they going to pay the doctors and hospitals and other care providers?  They're already in an economic downturn because all the insurance companies they've put out of business in their state are looking for work.  So what is the next logical step?

Rationing.  They either have to start shutting down hospitals, fire personnel, or deny services.  If they can't raise taxes to support the costs, and those costs actually will go up because free incurs increased use every time in every industry and market.  It's an economic fact.  So someone in government, (Bureaucrats or a blue ribbon panel convened to take the blame that elected officials won't) has to start telling people that the panacea of free care from cradle to grave for every aspect cannot exist.  How's that going to go over?  Led balloon anyone?

Now, if taxes COULD be raised, you slit your own throat again.  Why?  Because capital is fluid and you can't stop people and businesses and investors from fleeing your state.  If taxes go up, the taxed party shrinks as people find ways to circumvent the law.  They either leave, or find exemptions.  If they can't get the loophole, they will leave.  Often those who pay the most also have the easiest chance to leave.  This forces more and more of the tax burden on to those who can least afford it.  Now if businesses leave, unemployment rises and the ability to pay taxes decreases.  Simple fact of life.  It's a vicious circle that you can't escape from.  

You may say that 'but the costs are so much less that privately paid for health care because everyone pays in!"  Not really.  On the individual person, it may seem that way at first, but as usage goes up, so do the costs.  Plus, government is never efficient because they don't have a profit margin to protect.  If they have a cost overrun, fine, tax more or allocate more from the budget and find another revenue stream.  There is no pressure for quality either because what are you going to do?  force them out of business?  They're a monopoly!  Nobody else is allowed to play.  Where are you going to go?  Tennessee?  So it doesn't matter if you're incompetent, your job is secure because you can't go out of business.  The market is captive to your shoddy quality.  Don't believe me that this is the case, just look at how the Guilded Age acted towards consumers (read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" for instance)  Trusts and monopolies worked the same way as a government monopoly.  Quality decreased, costs decreased with quality, profits increased till the government got involved with consumer protection because the public was being abused.

The point is, that universal government healthcare is fatally flawed because it is unable to do efficient quality business practices, contain costs, or safely increase revenue without damaging the state's economy.  It's happening in Canada where in Winnipeg, for instance, they have to shut down over 50% of their operating rooms starting in fall because they run out of money, and the remaining ones are for emergency use only to save lives in immediate danger.  Their system is dying.  Cleveland is the hip replacement mecca for Canadians who can't get it done there in any reasonable amount of time.

Of course, these are simple logical examples of the laws of unintended consequences.  Private industry prices are high because costs are high.  They must have a profit margin to protect themselves so that they can survive bad times and grow into the future so everyone can potentially get coverage.  That is the nature of business.  That is why it is best handled by individuals and the private market.  Don't forget, if you don't like the way a company or hospital operates, you can always go somewhere else in theory.  If you have universal health care that's government mandated... there is no alternative.

Now, look a page or two back, see the 10 reforms I propose and discuss those and why they would or would not work.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 1, 2011)

> What would you do given a $200,000 bill?



Right now?  I'd tell them they better like payments.  If not, they can go ahead and sue me.  I'll declare bankruptcy and get out from under it that way.  Anything that I can't do, I'll see if a private charity would help, or family.  As it should be.

Now, let's ask another 'honest' question.  Why is the surgery 200k?  Shouldn't it be more like 20k at most?  If you want to play with loaded dice, let's figure that bitch of an issue out.  What, are the things driving up health care costs, and what can be done to reverse it, before we have the government just pay the status quo and perpetuate the same problem that is devestating the citizenry at large, hmm?  Or are we just into enabling this industry to keep on doing what it's doing?

Or is that too honest an intellectual challenge for you?


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 1, 2011)

syrenn said:


> I understand that part. I don't argue it would be a sweet deal for the working poor. However i believe the VAST majority within the system will be your non paying 1/3. (i think it would be more like the non paying 2/3's however.)
> 
> Now a good deal of people (and i am not saying you BF as i dont know your situation) who are the working poor also are entitled to food stamps, welfare, and section 8 housing. My guess they would still be exempt from payments even though they have jobs.
> 
> ...


You have continued to make the claim that everyone needs to pay the same, and I just don't see it.  If nothing more, you should reject that idea because RIGHT NOW we're not all paying the same, and the system IS still sustainable, as screwed up as it is. Why is it sustainable?  Because people who ARE paying cover those who are NOT.  This would still be the case if it was taken from taxes, except as usual for a percentage, the rich would pay more, and the poor would pay less.  Everyone who works a legal job pays to varying degrees.  

ALTERNATELY, if you don't like the taxation approach, keep the system as it is, but require some form of insurance coverage.  You'll find a parallel product: the rich will purchase good plans at higher costs, and the middle class will spend less on mediocre coverage.  



			
				syrenn;3277491[COLOR="Navy" said:
			
		

> I know what comes into the ER. I know there are true emergencies.
> 
> The point is if that person shows up for care and is still a_ non paying leach on the system_.(obamacare).......then nothing has changed at all. They are getting care for NOTHING. They are getting care that those who can pay are shouldering.
> 
> ...


Again, it could only LOWER the number of people not paying, as all the people in Fitz's category would be pulled in to contribute.  Now you COULD make the claim that the lower number of non-paying people would then be seeking out more healthcare since it's "free," but you made a good point before about ER visits.  Do you want this smaller group of people going to the ER once for their $6,000 antibiotics?  Or do you want them to visit their doctor three times at $100 per visit?



Big Fitz said:


> > So if this new system forces people like Big Fitz to pay into the system  simply because he is working a legal job and thus tracked via taxes, it  would mean more people are paying in, and less people are getting a  free ride. In short: it CAN'T increase both because it is a finite and  set system.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the theory.


Except it's NOT.  There ARE a finite and set number of people before and after the change. People can only go between the groups.



Big Fitz said:


> as usage goes up, so do the costs


Let's be clear.  As isolated usage of medical resources goes up, overall cost goes up.  As isolated usage of insurance goes up, cost go down.  



Big Fitz said:


> The point is, that universal government healthcare is fatally flawed because it is unable to do efficient quality business practices, contain costs


If you haven't realize, we are doing a HORRIBLE job at containing cost.  Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost containment.  Believing the government could not establish a new type of self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation.  Did you read the wikipedia article yet?



Big Fitz said:


> Of course, these are simple logical examples of the laws of unintended consequences.  Private industry prices are high because costs are high.  They must have a profit margin to protect themselves so that they can survive bad times and grow into the future


Bad times?  You mean when people stop needing health insurance?  Or growing in the future like when they push out new products and services such as MORE OF THE EXACT SAME THING.




Big Fitz said:


> That is why it is best handled by individuals and the private market.


Except, you CAN'T handle it.  We've established that.  If you right now were hit by a multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill, you couldn't handle it whatsoever.  You'd punk out and make everyone else pay.  



Big Fitz said:


> Don't forget, if you don't like the way a company or hospital operates, you can always go somewhere else in theory.  If you have universal health care that's government mandated... there is no alternative.


That's not true at all.  Can you point out a single written policy that has stated patients could not choose their own healthcare?  



Big Fitz said:


> Now, look a page or two back, see the 10 reforms I propose and discuss those and why they would or would not work.


Don't have time to go into each one.  Many of those are helpful to lower costs, but they are not solutions to the actual problem of sharing risk.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > What would you do given a $200,000 bill?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid, as well as the cost of the resources.  As I said, some stapler devices cost $500 just to open the pack, let alone reloading.  Surgery tends to use a lot of patented products in that way.  A lot of money goes into research and development, which gets transmitted to the cost, and more money still goes into ensuring every single thing that touches a patient's body is completely sterile.  This is not an easy task.  At least one doctor and two nurses are needed in the OR for the surgery itself, and another doctor or nurse for the anesthesia.  The recovery room has its own staff as well.  At a minimum, you're paying at least 5 highly trained individuals for hours and hours of work before you even pay the hospital, and we haven't even gone into the visits before the surgery or how long the surgeon will treat you in the hospital afterwards, which is included in that cost.  Which part of surgery would you do without?  Which people do you think ought to work for free?  Which resources do you think the hospital shouldn't charge for?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

> Except it's NOT.  There ARE a finite and set number of people before and  after the change. People can only go between the groups.



A snapshot of an economy is a finite number.  It shows you what's happening at that moment.  A real economy grows or shrinks depending on policy.  You believe that to earn money, you have to prevent someone else from earning it, don't you?



> Let's be clear.





Sorry, thought you were channeling P-BO.  Better drinking game than "Maverick" that's for sure.



> As isolated usage of medical resources goes up, overall cost goes up.   As isolated usage of insurance goes up, cost go down.



Whaaaaaa?  That's supposed to make sense?  Let's look at  real world examples:  The house purchase credit, energy efficient appliances credit and Cash for Clunkers.  All offered subsidies caused a jump in sales of those industries.  Why?  Because the prices were cheaper to the consumer.  I know people who rushed out to buy new appliances before the deadline.  Cash for Clunkers was touted as a 'success' by leftists who wanted to expand and extend it because it helped spawn auto sales.  Now... all those things have ended.  What happened?  Those markets crashed back to or even LOWER than what they were before the credit was offered.  Why?  Because the market was artificially influenced by an unsustainable subsidy.  Sorry, economics proves you wrong once again.



> If you haven't realize, we are doing a HORRIBLE job at containing cost.



Absolutely.  We also have to realize most of the high costs are CAUSED by government directly or indirectly.  University costs have risen faster than all other sectors of the economy with no good reason.  Just people begging for bigger paychecks.  Then you get into malpractice insurance among many other types of coverage for doctors and hospitals.  The legal fees in general, then pharmaceutical costs boosted because of advertising budgets and again, legal fees as well as the FDA gauntlet to even be approved for use.  These are just some of MANY different causes, and don't get me started on the union pressure either for related professions from Janitors to Nurses.



> Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost  containment.



And that's what Obamacare will do.  Actually, it will make it far worse because you've removed the consumer from direct impact of pricing even more.  Bureaucrats don't give a shit about how much something costs, as long as it's not "their" money.



> Believing the government could not establish a new type of  self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation.



Then you should have many examples of current government programs not fraught with waste, fraud, incompetence and misuse.  Please, I'd love to hear them.



> Did you read the wikipedia article yet?



Never saw a link.  I have no idea what you are talking about.  Plus, all politically charged articles on wikipedia are under constant flux by propagandists.  That's why you can't find an honest article on global warming there.



> Bad times?  You mean when people stop needing health insurance?



No, like when there is a flood of claims they must pay out on that can potentially bankrupt the insurance company.  You DO understand how this industry works, don't you?  This has cast some doubt on you for that.  When an insurance company recieves your premium check, where does it go?  What does it do?  I know, do you?



> Or growing in the future like when they push out new products and  services such as MORE OF THE EXACT SAME THING.



Define "exact same thing" please.  There are many different products out there for insurance.  But remember, state mandates define what they are allowed to sell and what must be included.  There's why many of them appear to be very similar to the untrained eye.  Have you ever personally shopped for health care and with multiple companies?



> Except, you CAN'T handle it.  We've established that.  If you right now  were hit by a multi-hundred-thousand dollar bill, you couldn't handle it  whatsoever.  You'd punk out and make everyone else pay.



And when the government punks out and can't afford to pay, who's going to bail them out?  You act like you think that can't happen.  Someone pays.  Either the medical facilities have to eat it, or someone pays.  Right now the nation is bankrupt, if it weren't for printing money out of thin air and getting loans from people who WILL be collecting someday.  I have said plainly, I would pay what I could afford on the bill till it was paid off, if they would take it.  If they won't, well they fucked themselves then, didn't they?  Sue me, fine.  I'm trying to make payments.  What are you going to get?  Blood from a stone?  Even RDD, before he ran away understood that.  But at least I have the personal character enough to be honest about that.  I'd look for help from the willing, being family and private charity, but if that's unavailable, oh fucking doo doo well.  What'll they do?  Take my birthday away?

Your point lacks validity or relevance.



> That's not true at all.  Can you point out a single written policy that  has stated patients could not choose their own healthcare?



As a matter of fact, the benefits package included a dental insurance form that just proves that.  I can only go to doctors in "Their Network".  If I go outside of it, I must pay for it myself.  This is not uncommon to any insurance type.  You use their glass installers, their roofing companies, their doctors, yadda yadda yadda.  If they don't do the procedure you want, you have to shell out as it will be uncovered.  If my doctor isn't on there, I cannot choose my own healthcare.

You don't have or never shopped for insurance, or never went through a workplace benefits seminar.  That's becoming quite obvious.



> Don't have time to go into each one.





> but they are not solutions to the actual problem of sharing risk.



Sharing risk is the problem?  By who's standard???  You realize that insurance companies share data with each other to help price risk properly, right?  They then price themselves accordingly.  Some accuse them of having an illegal trust, when in the end, it saves you money.  If it's just the government, who's going to price risk?  Bureaucrats who have no reason to get it right.  If an insurance company prices risk wrong, they end up out of business, as I illustrated earlier in this post.  If a government prices risk wrong... you just get to pay more taxes till you can't afford the taxes anymore.  YOu don't think it's going to happen?  Look at Sweden's 80% tax rates for average citizens.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

> Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid,



That's correct.  People need to be paid fairly for work they provide.  Medical care is a trade.  Services and goods for profit.  It is no different than farming, water purification, electricity or Ipods.



> As I said, some stapler devices cost $500 just to open the pack, let  alone reloading.  Surgery tends to use a lot of patented products in  that way.  A lot of money goes into research and development, which gets  transmitted to the cost, and more money still goes into ensuring every  single thing that touches a patient's body is completely sterile.



That's absolutely right.  Now ask yourself WHY are these things so expensive?  I mean we know that there is no such thing as a toilet seat worth $500 bucks, though military contractors charged that much for it.  So, why is that stapler so expensive?  Why is an aspirin or tylenol 20 bucks?  That is what we need to understand.  Why can't you cut costs by buying your own aspirin and taking it when they come to see you in the hospital?  Now we're getting down to part of the real problem... Identify the sources of increased costs, and find ways to pare those down.



> This is not an easy task.  At least one doctor and two nurses are  needed in the OR for the surgery itself, and another doctor or nurse for  the anesthesia.  The recovery room has its own staff as well.  At a  minimum, you're paying at least 5 highly trained individuals for hours  and hours of work before you even pay the hospital, and we haven't even  gone into the visits before the surgery or how long the surgeon will  treat you in the hospital afterwards, which is included in that cost.   Which part of surgery would you do without?  Which people do you think  ought to work for free?  Which resources do you think the hospital  shouldn't charge for?



Absolutely right.  These are all very highly trained and skilled people that must be present to administer the best medicine possible.  I'm not suggesting for one second they don't deserve to be paid for their time.  My question to you is still 'why does it cost so much for them to BECOME doctors, nurses and everything?  Labor is always the most expensive part of any industry.  If you've ever been in management like I have, you would know that.  But why do doctors leave school with a quarter million or more in student debt?  Why are university costs so high?  Why can't we start cutting down costs there?  How are universities justifying their costs when they are being subsidized or fully funded by the taxpayers in most cases?

See, you have to follow the thread in both directions.  Not only where it will go, but how it got to the point where you picked it up in the first place.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> A snapshot of an economy is a finite number.  It shows you what's happening at that moment.  A real economy grows or shrinks depending on policy.  You believe that to earn money, you have to prevent someone else from earning it, don't you?


No, and that's not what we're discussing either.  Everyone needs healthcare at some point in their life.  This is not an economy such as color TV sales.  EVERYONE is in on it.  That finite number I mentioned is the American population.  



Big Fitz said:


> Whaaaaaa?  That's supposed to make sense?  Let's look at  real world examples:  The house purchase credit, energy efficient appliances credit and Cash for Clunkers.  All offered subsidies caused a jump in sales of those industries.  Why?  Because the prices were cheaper to the consumer.  I know people who rushed out to buy new appliances before the deadline.  Cash for Clunkers was touted as a 'success' by leftists who wanted to expand and extend it because it helped spawn auto sales.  Now... all those things have ended.  What happened?  Those markets crashed back to or even LOWER than what they were before the credit was offered.  Why?  Because the market was artificially influenced by an unsustainable subsidy.  Sorry, economics proves you wrong once again.


Sorry, reading comprehension proves to be escaping you once again.  The comment had nothing to do with incentivization.  Please go reread.



Big Fitz said:


> > Maintaining the status quo is a poor decision with regards to cost containment.
> 
> 
> And that's what Obamacare will do.  Actually, it will make it far worse because you've removed the consumer from direct impact of pricing even more.  Bureaucrats don't give a shit about how much something costs, as long as it's not "their" money.


You think it will maintain the status quo by making it worse?  I don't think you understand what the term "status quo" means then.  Adding a public option would disrupt the status quo.  



Big Fitz said:


> > Believing the government could not establish a new type of self-sustaining operation is unsupported speculation.
> 
> 
> Then you should have many examples of current government programs not fraught with waste, fraud, incompetence and misuse.  Please, I'd love to hear them.


You think that establishing a NEW type of SELF-SUSTAINING operation should have prior examples?  That wouldn't make it new or self-sustaining then, would it?  Again, I can't help but question your reading comprehension.  Do you just overlook words or not know what they mean?  Wait let me guess, you're about to prove your literacy with lolcats.



Big Fitz said:


> > Did you read the wikipedia article yet?
> 
> 
> Never saw a link.  I have no idea what you are talking about.


I've posted it twice now, and pasted excerpts from it. Well that explains the question about you just overlooking various parts of posts.  Here's the link for the third time: Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Big Fitz said:


> No, like when there is a flood of claims they must pay out on that can potentially bankrupt the insurance company.  You DO understand how this industry works, don't you?


You do realize they receive their money BEFORE giving people the insurance, right?  You know there's a large reservoir to draw from over the course of the entire year, and that at the end of each year they CONSISTENTLY come up with 3-6% more money than they needed to dole out, don't you? When was the last time a health insurance company went bankrupt?  I'm just giddy to hear more of your completely imaginary ideas.



Big Fitz said:


> Define "exact same thing" please.  There are many different products out there for insurance.


OK that answers the question about you understanding the meanings of simple terms.  Fire the lolcats!



Big Fitz said:


> And when the government punks out and can't afford to pay, who's going to bail them out?  You act like you think that can't happen.


Remind me again when the last time a health insurance company went out of business?
Perhaps you should do a bit more reading on the topic: What If My Insurance Company Goes Bankrupt?

As I said, it's only people like you who go bankrupt and leave their medical bills to everyone else.  It's funny that someone who is the classic profile of the problem is so loudly speaking on the topic.



Big Fitz said:


> As a matter of fact, the benefits package included a dental insurance form that just proves that.  I can only go to doctors in "Their Network".  If I go outside of it, I must pay for it myself.  This is not uncommon to any insurance type.  You use their glass installers, their roofing companies, their doctors, yadda yadda yadda.  If they don't do the procedure you want, you have to shell out as it will be uncovered.  If my doctor isn't on there, I cannot choose my own healthcare.
> 
> You don't have or never shopped for insurance, or never went through a workplace benefits seminar.  That's becoming quite obvious.


You don't even have health insurance.  That's become quite obvious.  Once again you miss the point in that the government policy did not prevent people from seeing certain healthcare providers.  You can't point to a single quote from any government policy on this topic, active or defeated, that said patients could not choose which doctor to use. 



Big Fitz said:


> Sharing risk is the problem?  By who's standard???  You realize that insurance companies share data with each other to help price risk properly, right?  They then price themselves accordingly.  Some accuse them of having an illegal trust, when in the end, it saves you money.  If it's just the government, who's going to price risk?


First off, Obama never wanted it to be JUST the government.  It was always about a public option in addition to all private options.  Thus it's called OPTION.  Furthermore, you miss the point once again.  Risk sharing is done by the people paying for the insurance and healthcare in relation to themselves AND the people not paying.  We're not talking about insurance companies performing risk-cost analysis.  We're talking about money in and money out, plain and simple.  If 10 people put money in and 20 take it out, that's not sharing the risk too well.  You can see it as the rich paying for the poor, but really it's the healthy paying for the sick, as far as their wallets and stubbornness allows.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 2, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > Well, it involves all the skilled people that need to be paid,
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct.  People need to be paid fairly for work they provide.  Medical care is a trade.  Services and goods for profit.  It is no different than farming, water purification, electricity or Ipods.


Except it IS.  It's a LOT different.  Saying healthcare is a commodity equal to iPods is equating the necessary quality of living to the very Unnecessary consumer items.  Again, we're talking about necessary shared commodities.  TVs and trips to Paris do not apply.



Big Fitz said:


> Now ask yourself WHY are these things so expensive?  I mean we know that there is no such thing as a toilet seat worth $500 bucks, though military contractors charged that much for it.  So, why is that stapler so expensive?


Because they are patented items.  They don't use the swingline staplers found on any given cubicle desk.  It is especially made for the purpose of specific surgical procedures. As I mentioned previously, the cost comes from research, development, and proprietary information.

I'm sure surgery would be cheaper if we used older or outdated technologies that produce worse outcomes.  Would you be willing to undergo such a surgery with your life on the line?



Big Fitz said:


> I'm not suggesting for one second they don't deserve to be paid for their time.  My question to you is still 'why does it cost so much for them to BECOME doctors, nurses and everything?  Labor is always the most expensive part of any industry.  If you've ever been in management like I have, you would know that.  But why do doctors leave school with a quarter million or more in student debt?  Why are university costs so high?  Why can't we start cutting down costs there?  How are universities justifying their costs when they are being subsidized or fully funded by the taxpayers in most cases?


How do you think medical and nursing students are trained?  They just purchase books and figure it out by themselves?  No!  Both classroom and clinical training is taught by other professionals.  You said it yourself: they deserve to be paid for their time, but the fact remains that doctors and nurses who take time out of their schedule to teach usually wind up making LESS money for doing so.  

But what you are also overlooking is the time cost to medical professionals.  Surgeons require 4 years of medical school where they PAY to be there, followed by 5-7 years of surgical training, followed by 1-3 years of specializing, where they get less than minimum wage.  Even without the debt, do you really expect them to come out and continue working for beans after sacrificing years of their life being pushed in ways you can't even imagine?


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 2, 2011)

> I've posted it twice now, and pasted excerpts from it. Well that  explains the question about you just overlooking various parts of posts.   Here's the link for the third time: Public health insurance option - Wikipedia, the free  encyclopedia



wait... what's this 'article' in Wikipedia supposed to prove?  All it seems to be after going through it is a collection of quotes of far leftist big government types offering opinions as to why it's a good idea, criticisms of the concept, and a list of public opinion polls obviously biased (barely) towards the desire for universal healthcare.  

I fail to see this as evidence of anything.

But as for the entirety of your next two posts, there is not one damn thing worth commenting on because of your intellectual dishonesty, refusal to use critical thinking or analysis, personal rancor and partisan hatred for all things free market or capitalistic.  Begrudging a company from making a profit of 3-6%?  

Yeah, your new moniker, Dumberthanfuck, sticks.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> wait... what's this 'article' in Wikipedia supposed to prove?  All it seems to be after going through it is a collection of quotes of far leftist big government types offering opinions as to why it's a good idea, criticisms of the concept, and a list of public opinion polls obviously biased (barely) towards the desire for universal healthcare.
> 
> I fail to see this as evidence of anything.


Yes, you do fail to see.  If you'd like, we can take the time to go over the actual policies as they were written up, to find the EXACT same thing.  The public option was meant to serve as a self-sustaining institution, just as EVERY SINGLE health insurance provider is, but playing a zero-sum game and without the tremendous administrative overhead. 



Big Fitz said:


> But as for the entirety of your next two posts, there is not one damn thing worth commenting on because of your intellectual dishonesty, refusal to use critical thinking or analysis, personal rancor and partisan hatred for all things free market or capitalistic.  Begrudging a company from making a profit of 3-6%?
> 
> Yeah, your new moniker, Dumberthanfuck, sticks.


Translation: you have nothing but whining and name calling. Let me know when you're done with your snack time and nap so we can continue this conversation.  Until then, the following points still stand:

Doctors undergo extensive unpaid followed by low-paid training, to be paid more when training is finished
Medical devices are costly due to R&D and proprietary use
Healthcare is a shared necessary commodity, much like roads and public schools, and as such should not be compared to unnecessary luxuries or consumer products
Distributing risk over a population is the best way to ensure healthcare for that population
People like you who can't cover their own large healthcare expenses are the reason risk is not distributed well and everyone else pays more
Open market competition promotes price reductions, and such competition is not well established in the healthcare industry today.
There are a number of other ways to reduce cost in healthcare, but none of them address the underlying issue or risk distribution.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 8, 2011)

> The public option was meant to serve as a self-sustaining institution,  just as EVERY SINGLE health insurance provider is


Except it won't be.  Economics proves this time and time again.  When the costs are not inflicted DIRECTLY on the user, the product is overconsumed and overused creating shortages and requiring rationing.

Why do you think when an awesome deal happens at the grocery store, they often say "Limit X" and limit how many a single person can buy per visit?  Because there is not enough to go around for demand at that rate.  And before you say it's different, you're right.  Food is MORE critical a need than healthcare and still use rationing that some will try to circumvent and overuse because they are selfish and greedy.

Same will happen for medicine.  There is NO way to dodge this reality of economics.  Claiming it won't in 'this instance', is fucking stupid.

Right now I don't have the time or really need to address the rest of your points and show you why the public option is an abject failure.  Maybe some other time when I am interested in enabling my masochism.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Except it won't be.  Economics proves this time and time again.  When the costs are not inflicted DIRECTLY on the user, the product is overconsumed and overused creating shortages and requiring rationing.


Except every profitable health insurance company in the country has already proven you wrong in that institutions can and do exist that are self-sustaining in this field. 



Big Fitz said:


> Why do you think when an awesome deal happens at the grocery store, they often say "Limit X" and limit how many a single person can buy per visit?  Because there is not enough to go around for demand at that rate.


Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY!  Are you really so naive to believe that businesses are spending time trying to figure out how their sale on canned beans can benefit everyone out of the kindness of their own hearts?  You really think a profit-driven market cares how they sell their entire stock?  That's hilarious.  It's designed to get people to purchase by making the mistake you just made.  There's no actual shortage of canned beans that needs to be sparingly distributed.  But it made you believe there was, so you went to that store to buy them, and a few other full-priced items while you're there.

Take the tech industry.  Do you really believe that Apple has trouble mass producing iPhones?  Nonetheless stores had "limit 2" and were sold out frequently.  Remember when the Playstation 3 first came out?  It too seemed to always have limits and be out of stock DESPITE IT'S LACK OF POPULARITY.  

But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself. The limits are already lifted in medicine. 



Big Fitz said:


> Right now I don't have the time or really need to address the rest of your points and show you why the public option is an abject failure.  Maybe some other time when I am interested in enabling my masochism.


Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make crappy points, get them completely demolished, and then claim that either the other person is too dumb, or you are too busy, or you are not interested, etc etc etc etc while not actually supporting anything you said or refuting what the other person said.  I get it: you have nothing.  You might as well not bother posting in the first place.


----------



## auditor0007 (Feb 8, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> That's what I would like to know. Because the more liberal support and arguments you read for Obamacare or single payer or UHC, it seems that the left doesnt' really want health care to cost less, they want it to cost nothing to the consumer. That concept needs to be addresssed. Tackling the cost to the consumer and lowering it has one set of possible solutions. Making it cost nothing or something government funded through taxes requires another set of solutions.
> 
> So out with it libs. Is health care something you should pay directly for? Or is it something government should provide through taxes?



Considering that currently healthcare is paid for both directly and through government, I'm not sure there is one straight forward answer, unless of course, one would support complete government control through a single payer system.  That is not likely the answer to help reduce costs.  However, there is no way we will or can ever get government completely out of healthcare.  And as the average age of our society continues to climb higher, the fact is that more medical care will be paid for via the government through Medicare.  No matter where we head, everyone realizes that there is no such thing as free healthcare, unless of course you are so poor that you receive all other types of government help also.

Insurance companies have been part of the problem because they limit who can and cannot receive coverage and in many cases treatment.  That being said, insurance companies alone are not the reason costs have increased so much over the last thirty years.  The real culprit is the providers themselves.  Why is it that a liver transplant costs $350,000 in the US but only $60,000 in India, Taiwan, Malaysia, or a number of other countries?  And for that $60,000, you get the gold treatment in those countries.  

Here is the real problem with insurance companies.  They make an extremely low profit margin.  However, that small margin is on a tremendous amount of revenue.  Increasing profit margins is not really possible.  So how do insurance companies increase profits?  This is where it gets interesting.  Insurance companies contract with healthcare providers to pay a certain amount for any given procedure or treatment.  The providers try to get as much as they possibly can.  This only makes sense as they are in business to make money too.  The problem is that the insurance companies have no incentive to force providers to lower their costs, because that is in direct conflict with their own interests.  Insurance companies want to see higher provider costs, because this is how they increase their own profits, by passing on the cost to their policyholders.  

What we have is a situation where there is no reward for true competition.  So the answer would seem simple.  Make people pay out of pocket for their medical expenses, and costs would come down because providers would actually have to compete with each other.  The problem with this is that when and individual becomes sick, they can't afford treatment for something major.  Not everyone becomes deathly ill and needs $500,000 worth of medical care at any given time.  Heck, most don't need $100,000 worth of medical care at any given time.  Yet needing that would bankrupt most people, so we have a need for insurance, which brings us back to square one where this reduces the environment for real competition.

To me, the only viable answer is to get employers out of the business of providing insurance to their employees.  Make people responsible for their own healthcare rather than their employers.  Don't allow pre-existing conditions to be a determining factor as to whether or not a person can purchase insurance, but give people a real option when it comes to insurance policies.  In the end, we would see most minor medical bills paid for out of pocket, with high deductible health insurance policies and more Health Savings Accounts or something similar.


----------



## Big Fitz (Feb 8, 2011)

> Except every profitable health insurance company in the country has  already proven you wrong in that institutions can and do exist that are  self-sustaining in this field.



Because they price risk according to actual worth, not artificially low like the gubmint plan MUST be to be universal.  Therefore it is NOT like a private company because taxation most certainly will be used to cover up their shortcomings.  Just like Amtrak and the USPS, they all end up begging for more revenue from the taxpayer trough.  

I would like you to name ONE government agency that is totally self sufficient, and gains no help from taxes.



> Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY!


 
You really don't know a damn thing about economic theory or application, do you.



> Are you really so naive to believe that businesses are spending time  trying to figure out how their sale on canned beans can benefit everyone  out of the kindness of their own hearts?



Thank you for destroying your entire argument on why there needs to be an 'affordable government option' when the need is taken care of by the free private market.  Kindness of the heart has zero value and therefore cannot be used as a factor in products and services.  



> You really think a profit-driven market cares how they sell their  entire stock?



The fact you think there's a difference between food, and medical care is just as ludicrous.



> There's no actual shortage of canned beans that needs to be sparingly  distributed.



You're right.  Because they price the product according to costs and charge what the market will bear.  There is no shortage of medicine in this country, for the most part, because its price mirrors cost plus profit based on what the market WILL bear.  Why does it bear such a high cost?  Because the consumers are not paying for it and therefore not directly feeling the pinch of the costs.  They are insulated from the repercussions of it, and so the cost continue at inflated rates because the market so far WILL bear it. 

You've also confirmed your utter lack of economic or business knowledge with this post.



> But it made you believe there was, so you went to that store to buy  them, and a few other full-priced items while you're there.



Unbelievable.  Just friggen unbelievable.  Little tip you need to learn if you ever (god forbid) are put in charge of a business.  You never put something on sale when there is either a shortage, or when business is good.  You put on a sale when you have a SURPLUS or you wish to draw in business when it is slow, or harm a competitor.

You have it bass ackwards.  Incredible.  

Of course, what you have done is mix in the concepts of 'bait and switch' as well as loss leaders without understanding the core concepts behind them.  I don't have time or interest to give you a free lesson in economics of the market place, so I recommend you go take a class at an accredited school for Intro to Economics.



> Take the tech industry.  Do you really believe that Apple has trouble  mass producing iPhones?  Nonetheless stores had "limit 2" and were sold  out frequently.  Remember when the Playstation 3 first came out?  It too  seemed to always have limits and be out of stock DESPITE IT'S LACK OF  POPULARITY.



Welcome to rationing.  Wait till it's for appendix removal where you have to be on the 'pre-registry' list.  Or knee replacement.  Do you know why there are donor lists?  Because there are not enough organs to go around.  You want to trivialize this by saying that supplying enough iPods is the same damn thing?  Fine, do so at your own peril.  You prove again you don't understand the issue, it's realities and applications of solutions like Obamacare.



> But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of  whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself.



Again, thanks for debunking your own argument for a public option or Obamacare.  The free market does the job well without government interference.

And before you even go there, let's just remember how much of health costs are caused due to government mandates, government school costs, government hoops to jump through, corporate taxes and many many many other regulations that 'protect' the public.



> Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make  crappy points, get them completely demolished,



You have an overinflated sense of your entertainment value .  An an outstandingly absurd believe that you're intelligent.  I've fisked the shit out of you many times, and finally realize you are incapable of comprehending basic foundations of the discussion.  Really sucks the impetus to bother with you dumberthanfuck. It's up to you to bring something to the discussion other than faint understanding of the concepts to make you worth the time.

I'm still waiting to post something that wouldn't get you an 'F' in an economics class.


----------



## SmarterThanHick (Feb 11, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Because they price risk according to actual worth, not artificially low like the gubmint plan MUST be to be universal.


Who said the government option was universal?  Again, you seem to exhibit a lack of knowledge on this topic.  As you said, private companies price their money in against their money out.  The government can do the EXACT SAME THING, but without inflating for profit, and at a much more efficient and lower costing administrative overhead.  This is also well documented: as screwy as the government can be, it still runs health insurance more efficiently than the private sector.  That's sad.



Big Fitz said:


> I would like you to name ONE government agency that is totally self sufficient, and gains no help from taxes.


Did you miss the last three times I mentioned this would be a paradigm of a government agency?  But to answer your question anyway:
Reason Foundation - Out of Control Policy Blog > Are Toll Roads Subsidized or Self-Supporting?
Florida's Turnpike - The Less Stressway | About Us | Frequently Asked Questions




Big Fitz said:


> > Because it's a MARKETING STRATEGY!
> 
> 
> 
> You really don't know a damn thing about economic theory or application, do you.


And your explanation for limiting the number of items a person can buy is because there's a genuine shortage and these companies want to spread the good item out of the kindness of their own hearts?  That's delusional. 
http://ezinearticles.com/?30-Coupon-Disclaimers-to-Eliminate-Customer-Disputes&id=2351278
http://ezinearticles.com/?Know-The-Most-Common-Marketing-Strategies---And-Save&id=5394009
Why put a "limit per customer" on a product? - Yahoo! Small Business

I don't suppose you have any supporting evidence?  No, I wouldn't want you breaking your streak now.  



Big Fitz said:


> The fact you think there's a difference between food, and medical care is just as ludicrous.


You find it odd that there's a difference between food and medical care?  Do you eat your medical care or am I missing something here? 



Big Fitz said:


> You're right.  Because they price the product according to costs and charge what the market will bear.  There is no shortage of medicine in this country, for the most part, because its price mirrors cost plus profit based on what the market WILL bear.  Why does it bear such a high cost?  Because the consumers are not paying for it and therefore not directly feeling the pinch of the costs.  They are insulated from the repercussions of it, and so the cost continue at inflated rates because the market so far WILL bear it.
> 
> You've also confirmed your utter lack of economic or business knowledge with this post.


Yes we've already established you have a habit of saying "no you're wrong and dumb" or posting lolcats without actually being able to support  a thing you say.  I get it.  You should try to change that at some point.  

While it is true that removing consumers from seeing prices allows for inflation, a point that no one in this entire thread has contested, the concept works at both the care giving and insurance pricing level.  There's a reason why insurance company profits were at an all time high during a recession in the last year. Both areas need to be addressed.  Seeing as you and every other conservative has come up with ZERO solutions to the former, the government can address the latter by providing a self-sustaining break-even organization. 

The dumb thing, as addressed by countless politicians, is to throw our hands in the air and claim we should do nothing because we can't fix everything at the same time.  Ridiculous. 



Big Fitz said:


> Unbelievable.  Just friggen unbelievable.  Little tip you need to learn if you ever (god forbid) are put in charge of a business.  You never put something on sale when there is either a shortage, or when business is good.  You put on a sale when you have a SURPLUS or you wish to draw in business when it is slow, or harm a competitor.
> 
> You have it bass ackwards.  Incredible.


You are mixing two issues here.  First is sale pricing, and the other is customer limits.  I've already addressed the latter.  As for sale pricing: you seem to have a poor grasp of what "sale" means to many companies.  Here's a hint: putting a regularly-priced $100 item at $120 on "sale" for $100 drives business.  Did you really think Apple has a SHORTAGE of iPhones when only 5 come into a store per day, and Sony has a SHORTAGE of PS3s even though they aren't selling?  You have a decent idea of the basic economic concepts of supply and demand.  The higher level marketing tactics appear to elude you yet again.
Loss leader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You should do some more reading.  Notice how this article states "Loss leaders are often scarce, to discourage stockpiling. ... The retailer will often limit how much a customer can buy." Exactly what I just said, in contradiction to what you just said. Come back when you can provide a link to anything that supports what you say. 



Big Fitz said:


> Welcome to rationing.  Wait till it's for appendix removal where you have to be on the 'pre-registry' list.  Or knee replacement.  Do you know why there are donor lists?  Because there are not enough organs to go around.  You want to trivialize this by saying that supplying enough iPods is the same damn thing?  Fine, do so at your own peril.  You prove again you don't understand the issue, it's realities and applications of solutions like Obamacare.


No.  No one in this thread has stated that purposely withholding iPods is equivalent to organ donation.  Try to avoid the strawman arguments, and stop confusing costs of insurance and associated marketing techniques, with primary health care costs. Appendix removals are emergent and are never rationed.  Poor example on your part.  



Big Fitz said:


> > But the fact is that people are obtaining medical care REGARDLESS of  whether they have insurance or not, as you are doing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, thanks for debunking your own argument for a public option or Obamacare.  The free market does the job well without government interference.


You think the free market is doing a good job?  We pay more for health insurance than most other countries in the free world and we have worse outcomes, and you think that's getting the job done well?  Ridiculous. Maintaining the status quo means that whenever people like you want to be deadbeats instead of paying for their own healthcare, everyone who does pay suffers for it.  



Big Fitz said:


> > Yes I've noticed this seems to be your strategy on these boards: make  crappy points, get them completely demolished,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry I'll start making comments that are of your caliber and quality instead of providing sources that support everything I say:


----------

