‘Government-Run’ Nonsense and other dubious right wing lies shot down

[bripat9643]

Here's the thing, though.

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

Government has already taken on the hard-cases. the elderly, the poor, the disabled- who need constant and expensive care.

So private insurance is left just caring for the people who are mostly healthy.

ObamaCare attempts to preserve the status quo by forcing people to pay into the system who could and weren't and adding additional government subsidies for those who can't, but it speeds up the demise of the system by essentially eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse payment for pre-existing conditions.

Essentially, allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it. In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive. That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

Putting government in charge doesn't solve the problem.

Giving everyone access to the latest and most expensive treatments available is never going to be affordable. Rationing is going to have to occur. The only question is how it should occur.

 

[bripat9643]

As a country we should take care of the sick. It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.

Wrong. There's nothing moral about forcing 'A' to pay the bills of 'B.'

 

[Intense]

FactCheck.org : ‘Government-Run’ Nonsense




The GOP's dumbass claim of so called "Obamacare" being government run health care gets debunked yet again and again but these piss stains insist on repeating the same claim over and over again.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwDbd4jQpkA&feature=related]Soap - Chuck and Bob Mindreading - YouTube[/ame]
Soap - Chuck and Bob Mindreading

 

[Chris]

Here's the thing, though.

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

Government has already taken on the hard-cases. the elderly, the poor, the disabled- who need constant and expensive care.

So private insurance is left just caring for the people who are mostly healthy.

ObamaCare attempts to preserve the status quo by forcing people to pay into the system who could and weren't and adding additional government subsidies for those who can't, but it speeds up the demise of the system by essentially eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse payment for pre-existing conditions.

Essentially, allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it. In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive. That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

Putting government in charge doesn't solve the problem.

Giving everyone access to the latest and most expensive treatments available is never going to be affordable. Rationing is going to have to occur. The only question is how it should occur.

Every other industialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. The French have the best system. They incorporate cost saving methods such as their medical schools are cheaper, so they have many more doctors per capita, they limit liability, so doctors don't have to pay for high insurance, and they negotiate drug costs with Big Pharma. And they cover everybody with a basic level of insurance. And if people want to buy additional private insurance, they can.

You can read about it at this link from Businessweek....

The French Lesson In Health Care

 

[bripat9643]

It's this sort of comment that proves education has failed us. The Constitution is a specification of the powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of prohibitions on government.

Seriously, read the Federalist Papers. Read some basic American history.

Then you must be reading them incorrectly. That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited.

ROFL! What an idiot. It's only "Leninist" if it applies to people, not the government. In the former case, it strictly limits individual liberty. In the later case, it expands individual liberty. Claiming it's "Leninist" is Commie propaganda.

Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.

ROFL! It was meant to be a "stone," as you put it, around the neck of government. Preserving individual freedom means severely circumscribing the authority of government. Giving the government "flexibility" means giving it authority to run your life.

the truth is the exact opposite of what you claim.

Big surprise there.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations

You elided big chunks of that quote. Why is that, because it wouldn't support your point otherwise?

 

[Poli_Sigh]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

Socialized "medicine", what the fuck is wrong with you? When you were in the military and even now you have Tricare as a retiree, do you call that "socialized medicine?" You dumb fucking right wingers look like sick puppies parroting the bullshit of your pundits, "socialized medicine," what a dick head.

 

[Greenbeard]

The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it. In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive. That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

You think Medicare pays more for a given quantity and quality of health care than other payers?

 

[hortysir]

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. It specifically describes what the Federal government may do. If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government. Leftists consistently fail to understand that.

One again jackass, explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution. Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

Let me dumb it down for you;

The Constitution is a document that lists what powers the Federal Gov't has.
Any powers NOT listed is relegated to the States.

So the burden lies with YOU:
Show where the Constitution gives the Fed Govt authority to mandate a citizen to buy a private product.

 

[Greenbeard]

Pick anything in this nation, and you will find that we spend more on _______ than any other nation. We have choices in this nation where other nations' gov'ts limit their choices.

In other news today: Report: U.S. Outspends Other Countries On Health Care – Capsules - The KHN Blog

We’re No. 1. In health spending. Again.

The United States far outpaces other countries in how much it spends on health care, although Americans have a lower rate of doctor visits and hospitalizations than most of the other 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

In its Health at a Glance 2011 report, out today, the OECD shows that the United States spent about $7,960 per person on health care in 2009 – about 2.5 times the average of the countries studied. It also found that health spending in the U.S. has increased faster than in all other high-income OECD countries since 1970, even accounting for population growth.

Why? Generally, prices for medical care are higher in the U.S. – and some services are performed more often. Hospital prices are 60 percent higher than the average of 12 selected OECD countries, and the U.S. also generally pays more for each appendectomy, birth, joint replacement or cardiac procedure. Americans have more imaging tests, such as CT scans and MRIs, than residents of other countries and are far more likely to have knee replacements, coronary angioplasty or surgery to remove their tonsils.

Even with all that, compared with most of the other developed countries, the U.S. has fewer practicing physicians per person, fewer hospital beds, and patients don’t stay as long in the hospital.

 

[Intense]

The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it. In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive. That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

You think Medicare pays more for a given quantity and quality of health care than other payers?

No, they pay less, forcing Doctors to charge others more to Non Medicare Patients.

 

[bripat9643]

The point you seem to be missing is that medical care doesn't get any cheaper when the government runs it. In fact, the same quality and quantity of care becomes more expensive. That's the reason Medicare is headed for bankruptcy.

You think Medicare pays more for a given quantity and quality of health care than other payers?

When you figure in all the fraud, yes it does.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, they pay less, forcing Doctors to charge others more to Non Medicare Patients.

That notion raises some questions, as Uwe Reinhardt pointed out in the article mentioned in this thread:

One reason that economists have trouble with the cost-shift theory is that it implies that providers of health care leave money on the table, so to speak, when they bargain with private insurers over prices and that this reservoir is tapped by providers whenever government lowers the prices it pays providers. To phrase it in the form of a question: Why would a provider wait for a short-fall in public revenue to negotiate higher rates from its private payers if those payers are willing to pay higher prices? How widespread that behavior might be, economists argue, would depend on local market conditions, especially the degree of market power that providers have relative to private insurers in the local market.7 There also would have to be a companion theory explaining why providers would routinely charge insurers less than the traffic would bear.

 

[Listening]

Then you must be reading them incorrectly. That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)


Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations

Oh, he's got it read just right.

The Federalists were written to assuage the fears of those who were concerned about to strong a federal government. Look at what the "union" started with....a toothless government that could not even fund a standing army.

Your argument is either ignorant, wishful thinking, or a an out-and-out lie.

All you need do is look at the structure of the government to know it was set up to keep the federal government small and the states in control.

Any changes that Jefferson is referring to are achieved via a process called amending.

 

[konradv]

Then you must be reading them incorrectly. That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)


Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations

Oh, he's got it read just right.

The Federalists were written to assuage the fears of those who were concerned about to strong a federal government. Look at what the "union" started with....a toothless government that could not even fund a standing army.

Your argument is either ignorant, wishful thinking, or a an out-and-out lie.

All you need do is look at the structure of the government to know it was set up to keep the federal government small and the states in control.

Any changes that Jefferson is referring to are achieved via a process called amending.

I don't see that as a given. He does use the word 'amendment', but IMO it's in the broader sense of changes in public attitude, rather than strict legalism. He also mentions "the progress of the human mind", a notion akin to evolution rather than legislation. The Constitution is a short document for a reason. The FFs realized we'd need some wiggle room in the future and they gave it to us.

 

[Dragon]

The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."

I'm not sure if the ability to actually run and provide a British-style government-run health-care system is authorized, though. But that's not what's being proposed seriously by anyone.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The enumerated power in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that would authorize a universal single-payer system is the same one that authorizes Medicare, which is a non-universal single-payer system: "Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes . . . to . . . provide for the general welfare of the United States."

how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

What, you mean Obama lied? Cuz he said he saw the current bill as a 'first step' towards it. Just sayin'.

Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."

Very sinister! Don't take this the wrong way, but some of you are idiots.

Making it work for all Americans? Like the way the Federal Government currently handles medicare and medicaid? What about Social Security, I'm sure there has never been a problem with how the government manages that program? Can you name me one government run program that is more fiscally efficient than that of the private sector? I'd be intersted in hearing your view of how exactly does "government do a better job at making it work for All Americans", considering their financial track record and Federal budget issues.

 

[Greenbeard]

Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."

Making it work for all Americans? Like the way the Federal Government currently handles medicare and medicaid? What about Social Security, I'm sure there has never been a problem with how the government manages that program? Can you name me one government run program that is more fiscally efficient than that of the private sector? I'd be intersted in hearing your view of how exactly does "government do a better job at making it work for All Americans", considering their financial track record and Federal budget issues.

It's odd--when the quote from my post trickled down into your response, the wording had changed. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans" became "government do[es] a better job at making it work for All Americans."

I'm not sure how I explain a quote (which isn't mine, by the way) that doesn't say what you seem to think it says. That does seem be the theme of this thread, though. Many folks seem unable to distinguish between the kind of private multi-payer system reinforced by the ACA and single-payer models or "government-run" systems or whatever other terrors lurk in their imaginations.

 

[dblack]

how does the commerce clause apply if not buying insurance = not engaging in commerce

creative embellishment

EDIT: But fwiw, Dragon was referring to the general welfare clause, which by the prevailing 'interpretation' means the federal government can do virtually anything they want. Which of course raises the question of why they bothered with silly details like the post office and national defense. It's a tiring argument, one in which reason has historically given way to expediency.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Ah, yes. "I think it is a critical first step in making a health care system that works for all Americans."

Very sinister! Don't take this the wrong way, but some of you are idiots.

Yea, I've seen Universal Health Care up close and personal. Which is why I don't support it for my country. Every country that has it is desperately trying to save their system from collapse.

But it works just fine for our military? And senior citizens who demand that the politicians keep their hands off their Medicare?

Is that why Democrats are always so quick to look at military spending cuts, and offering early retirement to reduce the scope of our military forces, when it comes to deficit reduction? The Democrats are also always looking to eliminate Medicare Advantage that provides additional benefits to seniors like vision, hearing, dental, and health and wellness with lower out of pocket costs than the original part A or B plans.

Medicare Advantage Plans Provide Benefits and Savings : : Medicare : Simply Seniors