Yea, but “spreading the risk” has nothing to do with Socialism.
It’s really very simple, when determining if something is Socialism…
1. Is it Political in nature.
2. Is it about Equity and Fairness. (lol)
Police, Fire & all Municipal Services are fee for services, and have nothing to do with Socialism, and provided by the government mostly because of economy of scale.
Example: Trash Collection is cheaper in bulk than providing your own collection.
Examples of Socialism:
1. The progressive tax scale…this is the quintessential Socialism, designed to “Redistribute the wealth”
2. Minimum wage.
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 7:36 pm
by Will Robinson
To be honest though lets not forget that \"rationing of health care\" is already forced on us all the time by insurance companies.
When they drop you or deny coverage completely for preexisting conditions are just two examples of extreme rationing....when they mandate you receive treatment from only the doctors on their approved list, doctors who do as they are told regarding what treatment is recommended by accountants instead of doctors.. or the doctors decide they don't want to work for your company because they won't pay without fighting the doctor over a misspelled word on a form etc. so your list of available doctors shrinks are other examples of \"rationing\" that exists now.
The problem is the solutions the democrats are offering are not focused on the problems we face but rather, they are focused on how to take away private coverage so the voters become beholding to the politicians who will take the place of the insurance company.
Voting for the democrats \"solution\" is like hiring junkies to manage the pharmacies.
There are lots of industries where the government heavily regulates the delivery and cost of the service and yet the providers make a healthy profit and the government can't use their regulation to buy votes for one party or the other. Ask any stock broker about how careful he has to be about advertising, charging for service, keeping records, meeting government requirements on informing customers about his products etc.
Yet they can make large profits.
Health care could be the same but democrats would have to forfeit what they described as 'an emergency that should be treated as an opportunity'...obviously the opportunity they wanted to seize was us, by the balls, not the chance to fix something that was broken!
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 9:39 pm
by woodchip
Here's another good example of govt run health care doing just fine:
\"The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets
'It shows the incredible waste that has taken place that mothers are getting this sort of sub-standard treatment despite Gordon Brown's tripling of spending on the NHS.
'Labour have let down mothers by cutting the number of maternity beds and by shutting down maternity units.'\"
So it would seem the great social health care experiment in Britain can't even take care of you when you are about to be born. So someone tell me how it will be better here in the US when the feds control our health care?
Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 10:05 pm
by Spidey
This is a little off topic but, the above post made me think of it.
Did you know that Japan is known as “The Welfare Superpower”
Do you know what Japan is about to be known as?
Bankrupt!
(and health care has something to do with it) But to be fair, Japan’s health care system is one of a kind.
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 8:55 am
by woodchip
Well lets take another angle on health care. Will it be like the Cash for Clunker program:
\"But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable.\"
So the govt pays your health care procedure and then they send you a bill for the taxes on what your operation cost?
Re:
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 9:04 am
by Will Robinson
woodchip wrote:Well lets take another angle on health care. Will it be like the Cash for Clunker program:
"But many of those cashing in on the clunkers program are surprised when they get to the treasurer's office windows. That's because the government's rebate of up to $4500 dollars for every clunker is taxable."
So the govt pays your health care procedure and then they send you a bill for the taxes on what your operation cost?
I believe the plan in Congress now, the one Obama pretends to know so much about (until someone asks him about specifics) contains taxes on benefits just like he ridiculed McCain for including in his proposal.
So really that component is already in place but the funny thing is, while the media helped Obama scare senior citizens from voting for McCain because of that, they are suddenly silent now that Obama is suggesting it and instead, anyone who brings it up is painted as a brown shirt nazi brought in by special interests to stir up racially motivated hate filled opposition to the President...and of course the media complies with that game plan by only showing the pictures and sound bites that make them out to be fringe radicals instead of reporting the fact that the bulk of them are everyday citizens speaking out on the issues.
Re:
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:14 pm
by Tunnelcat
Will Robinson wrote:You suggest "We" need to decide but you advocate surrendering the decision making process from "we" to the same people who 'decided' taking our Social Security contributions out of the general fund, spending it on their own re-elections and writing worthless IOU's to replace them was a good thing...the same people who decided that Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were "doing fine" and decided to ignore and ridicule the regulator who reported to them that there was a serious problem....the same people who have proven over and over again they can't be trusted to deliver what they promise!
And in this case the administrations own accounting department has declared the plan isn't sustainable!!
So again I ask, why give them complete control of so much of our lives? Why not instead insist they actually regulate just the particulars of the high costs, insurance reform, supplement catastrophic coverage for people who are in need etc. etc.
No, I suggested 'we' as a people of a nation who's health care system is slowly bankrupting people due to the high cost of it's medical system, need to decide how much we are willing to pay for or suffer with when it comes to our health. I didn't say the government should decide. We all know that they are lousy at that one. I'm not advocating single-payer by the way, just a more fair system to spread the risk for all. The government's role should be as you stated in your last paragraph, by regulatory action and suplemental programs. The present insurance system for everything medical is bloated and unproductive to servicing the patient at a reasonable living cost. It also fails to help those who fall outside the system. Insurance companies are just as cruel and unforgiving when deciding who gets what care they need as any government bureaucrat can be. One system's no better than the other.
All I'm saying is that there is a moral and ethical component to the health care debate. Society needs to decide at what cost do we give unlimited health care to EVERYONE and should all aspects of health care be a for-profit market like it is now? Should there only be insurance for catastrophic and end-of-life care? The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about is are we all willing to pay the high cost of end-of-life care for everyone who needs it, wants it, demands it, but can't afford it? How much do we spend to survive at all costs and who decides who lives and dies? This is a VERY ethical debate with no easy answers. How do we evenly and fairly spread this risk for the benefit of society as a whole?
Re:
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 2:47 pm
by Stroodles
Bet51987 wrote:
CUDA wrote:
tunnelcat wrote: How about our damned Military?
I find this HIGHLY OFFENSIVE, I served in that DAMNED Military, I protected people like you. and I find this attitude totally unacceptable, if you don't like the government its one thing, but to smear the service of the men and women that VOLUNTARILY served this country with their lives
I believe, in the way she presented it, the word "damned" was being used as an intensive and not something demeaning.
Bee
Yes Cuda, Bee is correct here. I don't agree with TC's point, but I don't believe he was insulting the military.
But Cuda, if someone *had* smeared the military, I support that attitude 100%. I think that the military/national guard/police/etc. are the most honorable sections of our country. Putting your life on the line to protect people who will never know your name is an incredibly honorable thing to do. I thank you for your service.
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 5:42 pm
by AlphaDoG
Let us NOT forget Firefighters.
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:59 pm
by dissent
tunnelcat - you keep yammering on and on about costs (and fairness, whatever that means). Did you read the long Atlantic article I linked to on the first page of this thread? an excerpt
Why? One reason is a fixation on prices rather than costs. The government regularly tries to cap costs by limiting the reimbursement rates paid to providers by Medicare and Medicaid, and generally pays much less for each service than private insurers. But as we’ve seen, that can lead providers to perform more services, and to steer patients toward higher-priced, more lightly regulated treatments. The government’s efforts to expand “access” to care while limiting costs are like blowing up a balloon while simultaneously squeezing it. The balloon continues to inflate, but in misshapen form.
Cost control is a feature of decentralized, competitive markets, not of centralized bureaucracy—a matter of incentives, not mandates. What’s more, cost control is dynamic. Even the simplest business faces constant variation in its costs for labor, facilities, and capital; to compete, management must react quickly, efficiently, and, most often, prospectively. By contrast, government bureaucracies set regulations and reimbursement rates through carefully evaluated and broadly applied rules. These bureaucracies first must notice market changes and resource misallocations, and then (sometimes subject to political considerations) issue additional regulations or change reimbursement rates to address each problem retrospectively. …
…Health care is an exceptionally heavily regulated industry. Health-insurance companies are regulated by states, which limits interstate competition. And many of the materials, machines, and even software programs used by health-care facilities must be licensed by state or federal authorities, or approved for use by Medicare; these requirements form large barriers to entry for both new facilities and new vendors that could equip and supply them. …
Government regulation is a big part of the reason that the price mechanism is not able to function as a driver to move costs downward. See also this article for a little background on how we've gotten to the point we have. The conclusion of the Atlantic article discusses possible solutions that are similar to some of the points that you and some others have made.
Do let me know when you can get people to agree on what \"fair\" means. The soviet proletariat and the Khmer Rouge probably though they were being fair - I bet we could have found some people who disagreed with them (at least at one time), but, as they say, dead men tell no tales.
And if you seriously think that class warfare in the U.S. began with Reagan, then you might not know as much American history as you need to.
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 2:57 am
by Insurrectionist
Enough said!
Re:
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 5:41 am
by CUDA
Stroodles wrote:I thank you for your service.
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 3:38 pm
by Tunnelcat
OK people, there are 2 situations, but not solutions, that people have discussed here.
One situation, the free market has control of our health care through insurance coverage and since it's a for-profit market entity, it decides how much you need, the when and the what they'll pay for, just to keep their bottom line profitable to Wall Street. If they decide they don't want to pay for some or all of a proceedure, they're not obligated to and help must come either out of your own pocket or your just plain SOL. You seemingly have choice, but it's not a 'true' choice since everything and everyone wants to have a piece of the health care pie, so you won't find anything cheaper when you shop around, that is if you can even find out the price of anything you need done beforehand. Eeeeeeeeeeek, Capitalism!
The other situation, the government runs health care, usually not for profit, but by heartless non-caring bureaucrats. They also control the need, the what and the when of your health care life. Cost is spread around to all of society via taxation, graft and bloat becomes a problem and there is little incentive to runs things smoothly and efficiently. If you have a dispute with the government about your health care, you usually run into the bureaucratic wall of stone and your still SOL. Eeeeeeeeeeek, Socialism!
Both situations are problematic! There must be a way to accomodate everyone's wants and needs. I only brought up costs because that is the root of our problems. Everyone wants to be well no matter what, but how are we going to pay for it? No one wants to get sick or even to die, so how do we accomodate everyone in this aspect? Where are the incentives to cut costs when no one wants to die? Where are the incentives to cut costs when demand is so inelastic that it can't be run as a normal free market? What is a life worth and is it a right to be healthy?
I do have not solution for these problems. My only point is that I believe that profiting from the misery and sickness of other people is inhuman, unethical, immoral and pure evil, plain and simple. All of you out there that call yourselves 'Christian Conservatives' and are FOR the present health care for-profit mess we are using right now, are failing to follow your religious beliefs.
Re:
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:43 pm
by Lothar
tunnelcat wrote:the free market has control of our health care through insurance coverage
"Through insurance coverage" means it's NOT a free market, it's a market with significant barriers and distortions. When I've suggested free-market alternatives, they almost always involve significantly reducing the role of so-called "insurance" in paying for health care. Conservative health-care reform plans often suggest creating true "insurance" (catastrophic coverage, which can be cheaply but profitably offered, much like with auto insurance) and bringing the rest of health care into the realm of transparent pricing/billing, while giving consumers the same tax breaks that big companies get.
What you decry as "eeeeeek, capitalism" is not capitalism at all, it's a disgusting mess of regulations and monopolies and barriers to competition. It's a regulatory mess that makes regulators, lawyers, and accountants a ton of money off of the hard work of doctors (who, in many fields, don't actually make all that much.)
I only brought up costs because that is the root of our problems.
I disagree. Costs are a SYMPTOM of the problem, which is the ugly mess of regulations I highlighted above. Yes, everyone wants to be well, but people are willing to make tradeoffs regarding their health (after all, people eat junk food, smoke, don't exercise enough, etc.) But under the current ugly mess of regulations, most health-care tradeoffs are off-limits, and everything you or your insurance pay your doctor also supports a dozen accountants/lawyers/bureaucrats.
A "free market" solution isn't about profiting from misery and sickness. It's about profiting from offering health and comfort to the miserable and sick, much like any other industry is about profiting from bringing people what they want. The system we have now ALSO isn't about profiting from misery and sickness, it's about profiting through graft via the aforementioned ugly mess of regulations.
I don't know any "conservative Christians" who are FOR the current mess. The only people FOR the current mess are the lawyers, accountants, and bureaucrats who leech money out of the doctor-patient interaction. I, and many like me, would much prefer a system where medical procedures actually cost a fair amount based on how difficult they are. There's room for charity, and there's room for a government "safety net", to make sure that those who can't afford care can get it. What there's not room for is the ugly regulatory mess we have right now.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:29 am
by Duper
agreed Lothar. We would do well to peel back about 40 years of regulation and \"specialty restrictions\" designed to *uh-hem* protect our market from unresonable foreign trade.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:41 pm
by Tunnelcat
You've made some good points Lothar, but there are only about 4 or 5 LARGE health insurance companies in this country, with a smattering of smaller local competitors depending on what state you live in. How would removing regulation help in a market where the demand is inelastic and money is no object in the quest to get well or even live? It just seems rife with the possibility of greed and abuse when people are willing to spend unlimited amounts of money to get what they want. Why is primary care insured anyway? I would think that catastrophic care is what should be insured, if we follow all other models of insurance coverage in our system.
I stand by my statement that PROFITING off of the misery and sickness of people is immoral and unethical. Insurance companies are NOT giving us any ACTUAL health care in return for our money. They're skimming a large percentage of OUR money that really should be going to doctors and hospitals to PAY for ACTUAL treatment. If Christians in this country truly believe IN and are actually FOR what Jesus taught as stated in the Bible, they should be out screaming for a change in our amoral, greedy system to help our sick and dying, not championing for the continuation of the free market system of for-profit health care, couched as CHOICE! All I see is screaming in Democratic town halls by Conservatives to keep government socialism out of things, but they aren't suggesting or mentioning ways to create PRIMARY CARE for ALL in some NON-PROFIT form.
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:04 pm
by Spidey
Guess the author…
“The doctors and hospitals are charging too much for their services”
Re:
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 1:28 pm
by Lothar
tunnelcat wrote:Why is primary care insured anyway?
Government regulation requires health insurers to cover certain procedures. Because the market isn't remotely free, it's heavily regulated, insurers CAN'T legally offer catastrophic-only insurance.
I stand by my statement that PROFITING off of the misery and sickness of people is amoral and unethical
Profiting off of their misery and sickness, or profiting off of helping them deal with it? Those are two very, very different things. There's nothing wrong with making a living, or even a lot of money, off of providing people with something they want/need. The problem with the current system is that the government protects a system wherein fake prices and denied care are the norm.
Insurance companies are NOT giving us any ACTUAL health care in return for our money.... they should be out screaming for a change in our amoral, greedy system to help our sick and dying, not championing for the continuation of the free market system
This is like the sixth time in this thread you have wrongly called our current system "free market". It's nothing even resembling a "free market" system; it's a distorted mess of regulations and restrictions.
In a true "free market" system, companies rise up where there's opportunity. There's clearly opportunity here -- everyone wants a health care plan that provides them with actual care at a good price, and that's something that wouldn't be hard to offer in an open market. The problem is, our current government-regulated system makes it impossible for such companies to form, while protecting the already-existing companies' business model and profits.
I don't know of any conservatives screaming to "keep things as they are". I know of plenty who are saying "don't make things worse" (because "socialized" medicine is basically what we have now but with an extra layer of government greed, graft, kickbacks, etc.) but none who say "the current system is great, let's not reform it at all."
How would removing regulation help in a market where the demand is inelastic and money is no object in the quest to get well or even live?
1) Many of the regulations in the market PREVENT insurers from offering the sort of care people actually want at prices they can afford.
2) Many of the regulations in the market PREVENT small insurers from competing with the large ones, and they force small insurers to remain small and local rather than allowing them to grow and offer products across state lines.
3) Having insurance tied to employers, and tax breaks tied to employer-provided insurance, PREVENTS other insurers from offering you a better deal unless they can successfully convince your employer to switch plans (which itself is incredibly difficult, since the first company can always offer your employer a cheaper but weaker plan.)
4) Even if money is no object, people can only spend what they have or can get loans for. There's plenty of room for insurers to create plans that actually fit every type of consumer, even those with little money, there are just too many regulations out there that protect the status quo.
I'm not saying government regulation is 100% of the problem, nor am I saying that 100% of government regulation is problematic. What I'm saying is:
- bad government regulations are a big piece of the problem
- bad government regulations enable several other big pieces of the problem
- putting things even more in the hands of the government might fix some problems but will increase others
- good regulations (transparency, for example) are needed, but we need to separate those from the currently-existing bad regulations
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 3:54 pm
by Tunnelcat
So why aren't conservatives putting out succinct talking points describing how THEY would end certain government regulations to health insurance and how this deregulation would would lower costs and benefit the patient in terms that people would understand? All I keep hearing from conservatives is fear ranting on how Obama is going to 'socialize' your health care, create 'death panels' for grandma, limit choice, etc., etc. We all know the liberal point of view, either the public option or single-payer government run plan, but not a single good conservative plan has come out of this mix of ideas. Also, no one has addressed the problem of hidden costs and inequitable charges between the insured and the uninsured for the same procedures in our health care system. You can't be an informed patient when you don't know what you are being charged before you have something done. How will deregulation fix this one?
Actually, I shouldn't call what we have 'free-market'. What we actually have is a 'captive market' since demand is so inelastic. I personally think that removing all regulations would cause even a bigger greedfest free-for-all than we have now, NOT lower costs at all. Just look at what happened with Wall Street and unregulated credit default swaps. Lack of government regulation essentially gave license to banks, financial speculators and other Wall Street institutions to gamble with other people's money. By privatizing the profit and socializing all the risk, when the gamble soured, we the taxpayer ended up paying for it and a few fat cats made it big!
Lothar, you're assuming that a free market system will always favor lower costs and increasing efficiency because of free competition without any government regulation. I'm of the opinion that humans are greedy and self-centered and will always try to take as much from the system as possible. I'm more cynical than you because I believe people will always need rules in order to play the game fairly. Someone will invariably try to win everything for themselves, it's human nature.
Spidey, I'm not a big fan of doctors right now and pay is one facet, medical arrogance is another. They way the system works right now, if a doctor or doctors CAN'T figure out what is organically wrong with you, they are too arrogant to admit they don't know a diagnosis and will label you a somatizer just to get an insurance payment. In other words, you're faking your illness, but we have to give it a name anyway to get paid. My husband has been dealing with this ongoing nightmare, and I know he's NOT FAKING IT because I see him deteriorating more and more every day! He's finally given up on doctors helping him. I guess when he dies, it'll be because of his fake illness! @#%$&^#$ medical system! YES, I'M BITTER ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By the way Spidey, this will make you happy since you don't like the insurance mandate idea floating around.
tunnelcat wrote:why aren't conservatives putting out succinct talking points describing how THEY would end certain government regulations to health insurance and how this deregulation would would lower costs and benefit the patient in terms that people would understand?
I wish I knew. I've done it in this thread, and I've linked to several others doing it. But they ideas aren't getting the air time they need, because the talking heads are too busy whining.
not a single good conservative plan has come out of this mix of ideas
It's in my posts.
no one has addressed the problem of hidden costs and inequitable charges between the insured and the uninsured for the same procedures.... How will deregulation fix this one?
It's been addressed in my posts. This is a case in which an additional regulation is needed, while many other parts of the health care system need deregulated.
What we actually have is a 'captive market' since demand is so inelastic
And since supply is so unresponsive, because of the mess of regulations that force companies to play by the rules that gave us this broken system in the first place.
I personally think that removing all regulations
Who has ever said we should remove "all" regulations? I addressed this at the end of my last post! We need to get rid of the BAD regulations and keep or even expand the good ones.
look at what happened with Wall Street and unregulated credit default swaps
Lack of transparency (and poor jobs done by rating agencies) was one major culprit there. I have argued for STRONGER transparency regulations.
By privatizing the profit and socializing all the risk
Socializing the risks didn't happen by accident. It happened because of the way the government created insufficient TRANSPARENCY regulations but too many regulations that forced companies to take on risk and then allowed risk to be pawned off onto taxpayers. The TYPE of regulation was entirely bad. Again, I've already said this.
you're assuming that a free market system will always favor lower costs and increasing efficiency because of free competition without any government regulation.... I'm of the opinion that humans .... will always try to take as much from the system as possible.
That's not AT ALL what I'm assuming.
I'm arguing that the RIGHT KINDS of regulation will lead to a market system that favors lower costs and increasing efficiency. Humans will always try to take as much from the system as possible; I agree. The wrong types of regulation (those that created and protect the current system) allow humans to take a lot from the system while delivering very little. The right types of regulation (those that require transparency and allow competition) result in a system where the humans who deliver the most value take the most money.
People don't just need "rules" to play by. People need the right kind of rules -- they need rules that encourage innovation and efficiency, not rules that encourage graft and bureaucratic nonsense.
if a doctor or doctors CAN'T figure out what is organically wrong with you...
The current system of BAD REGULATIONS contributes to this. Your doctor has to work with several restrictions. If he doesn't want to go broke, he has to stick to treatments insurance will pay for. If he doesn't want to get sued, he can't experiment with possible treatments if they have any dangerous side effects. He certainly can't use experimental treatments without being sued and losing his practice. So he's pretty much forced into saying "I can't figure it out so it must be fake".
Re:
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:34 pm
by Will Robinson
Lothar wrote:...
People don't just need "rules" to play by. People need the right kind of rules -- they need rules that encourage innovation and efficiency, not rules that encourage graft and bureaucratic nonsense.
...
As long as the crooks/politicians that make the rules depend on trading exemptions to bad rules for campaign donations the odds against anyone creating good rules are overwhelming.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:34 pm
by Spidey
tc, my real concern regarding the individual mandate is how will they enforce it, I have no fears of the government forcing me to get insurance, that’s what the middle finger is for. My fear is going to a doctor and being told, they can’t treat me.
Because you and I both know, that’s the only way to enforce such a thing.
Re:
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:42 pm
by Will Robinson
tunnelcat wrote:So why aren't conservatives putting out succinct talking points describing how THEY would end certain government regulations to health insurance and how this deregulation would would lower costs and benefit the patient in terms that people would understand?...
Obviously they don't care about the issues we face as consumers of the health care system they only care about defeating Obama. If Obama fails at this it helps their party and their party is more powerful to them than the threat of losing votes we all too inconsistently use against them.
This is why I've decided I want Obama to succeed.
At least the conservatives will be forced to deal with the issues that have us paying too much if they have to come back and try to rescue the economy from the over reaching legislation Obama pushes through. As it stands now, if Obama loses his fight we all lose because no one will take up the issue for a couple of decades....game over.
Posted: Thu Sep 03, 2009 5:46 pm
by Spidey
Actually, I have heard good ideas from both sides, but the congress seems bent on the bad ones.
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:16 pm
by Tunnelcat
Well, Congress IS bought off by the big health insurance lobby, who keep on giving wads of cash to these 'politicians' to keep the status quo going. Must be a good investment for these companies because they on keep funneling money to our 'representatives' and we get our pockets cleaned out for our trouble, on top of getting sick or dead.
One of these days though, the pain level will get high enough for the majority of people in the U.S. that a change will happen, one way or another, and the present insurance-for-profit system will implode on itself. That will probably happen when employers can no longer afford to give any health insurance benefits to their employees and state and federal health programs that keep their workers healthy and happy finally go broke and THEY get dropped as well. We're not too far from that happening right now.
Re:
Posted: Sat Sep 05, 2009 7:01 pm
by AlphaDoG
tunnelcat wrote:Well, Congress IS bought off by the big health insurance lobby, who keep on giving wads of cash to these 'politicians' to keep the status quo going. Must be a good investment for these companies because they on keep funneling money to our 'representatives' and we get our pockets cleaned out for our trouble, on top of getting sick or dead.
One of these days though, the pain level will get high enough for the majority of people in the U.S. that a change will happen, one way or another, and the present insurance-for-profit system will implode on itself. That will probably happen when employers can no longer afford to give any health insurance benefits to their employees and state and federal health programs that keep their workers healthy and happy finally go broke and THEY get dropped as well. We're not too far from that happening right now.
Well then, here IS the deal. You go register to vote, THEN go vote. I always vote, and I ALWAYS vote against ANY incumbents. I simply HATE a career politician.
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:25 pm
by CUDA
it seems our illustrious leaders now want to fine you $3800 if you dont have health-care covereage.
And they plan to lower costs by placing charges on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.
Yea, ok I must be insane…
Time to buy more guns!
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 7:58 pm
by woodchip
And just who do you think will wind up covering those increased costs? Are some of you still thinking, \"Change we can live with?\"
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:42 am
by dissent
tunnelcat wrote:So why aren't conservatives putting out succinct talking points describing how THEY would end certain government regulations to health insurance and how this deregulation would would lower costs and benefit the patient in terms that people would understand? All I keep hearing from conservatives is fear ranting on how Obama is going to 'socialize' your health care, create 'death panels' for grandma, limit choice, etc., etc. ...
Jeebus!!! more frickin' yammering !!! You've been linked to all kinds of info in this thread - here's some more - http://healthcare.cato.org/
Why aren't you hearing more about these ideas? I don't know - maybe you need to get out more. What, you aren't getting it from any of the news puppets you ordinarily listen to? Yeah, heck those greedy bastards are just in it for the profit they can get from selling commercial minutes. I think we need more regulation of the news business ..........
People need to get a clue here. Obamacare isn't genuine reform. It's a lot of the current system with extra cheese and a (massive) side of heartburn.
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:17 pm
by Bet51987
dissent wrote:Jeebus!!! more frickin' yammering !!! You've been linked to all kinds of info in this thread - here's some more - http://healthcare.cato.org/
Why aren't you hearing more about these ideas? I don't know - maybe you need to get out more. What, you aren't getting it from any of the news puppets you ordinarily listen to? Yeah, heck those greedy bastards are just in it for the profit they can get from selling commercial minutes. I think we need more regulation of the news business ..........
People need to get a clue here. Obamacare isn't genuine reform. It's a lot of the current system with extra cheese and a (massive) side of heartburn.
From Sarah Palin, Sept 8th 2009......
"Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by - dare I say it - death panels?"
"More than one of every five requests for medical claims for insured patients, even when recommended by a patient's physician, are rejected by California's largest private insurers, amounting to very real death panels in practice daily in the nation's biggest state."
Rejection of care is a very lucrative business for the insurance giants. The top 18 insurance giants racked up $15.9 billion in profits last year.
Claims denial rates by leading California insurers, first six months of 2009:
Heritage and Cato are heavily biased conservative sites but anyway, I think it's you republicans that don't get it while your star.. Sarah Palin just spreads the lies.
Bee
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:24 pm
by Lothar
Bet51987 wrote:Heritage and Cato are heavily biased conservative sites
You seem remarkably proud of having noticed the conservative nature of the sites dissent linked to in response to tunnelcat's complaint about not having seen conservative health care plans. Good job!
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 1:42 pm
by Duper
Bet51987 wrote:
From Sarah Palin, Sept 8th 2009......
"Is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by - dare I say it - death panels?"
Bee, I've shown that this is going on ALREADY here in Oregon. What makes you think that the same thing won't happen when the budget starts getting tight? The same thing with procedure deferrals. It's happening and will happen under a government sponsored program.
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:56 pm
by Spidey
Lothar wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:Heritage and Cato are heavily biased conservative sites
You seem remarkably proud of having noticed the conservative nature of the sites dissent linked to in response to tunnelcat's complaint about not having seen conservative health care plans. Good job!
Warning….Irony Overload Detected…
Meltdown in 3...2...1...
ROFLMAO!
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:57 pm
by Bet51987
Lothar wrote:
Bet51987 wrote:Heritage and Cato are heavily biased conservative sites
You seem remarkably proud of having noticed the conservative nature of the sites dissent linked to in response to tunnelcat's complaint about not having seen conservative health care plans. Good job!
Whew, I thought you were going to agree with Sarah.
Bee
Re:
Posted: Wed Sep 09, 2009 3:39 pm
by dissent
dissent wrote:Jeebus!!! ... - here's some more -
...
People need to get a clue here. Obamacare isn't genuine reform. It's a lot of the current system with extra cheese and a (massive) side of heartburn.
Bee, the faith in big(ger) government that you so desperately cling to is at fault for a good part of the issues that you find so lamentable in the current health care system. Yet you continue to think that "extra cheese" is the solution. Yeah, we really need to rush through a health care "reform" package right away - especially one that's been crafted by a bunch of professional politicians. We don't need spend any time doing careful analysis of the potential impacts of this new legislation and consider them before enacting it. Heck no! Let's just ram 'er through, because perceived good intentions are all that matter.
Then again, maybe if you spent a little time studying some of those conservative approaches to reform, they might just get you to thinkin' a bit.
Duper wrote:Bee, I've shown that this is going on ALREADY here in Oregon. What makes you think that the same thing won't happen when the budget starts getting tight? The same thing with procedure deferrals. It's happening and will happen under a government sponsored program.
My nursing link shows it's happening already right now but you have nothing to prove that it will happen under the Obama plan. To answer your question, I have more faith in Obama than you do.
dissent wrote:...Then again, maybe if you spent a little time studying some of those conservative approaches to reform, they might just get you to thinkin' a bit.
I honestly try, but the main approach of the "conservative" group has been mudslinging, pastors praying for Obama to die, outright lies being spread by Sarah Palin, and a sky is falling mentality by most others. That's what I see...so far.
CUDA wrote:...Still suffering from Palin Envy,
I showed you that Sarah Palin is continuing to spread lies about the Obama plan and that the insurance companies are the real death panels and you immediately go into Palin Protectionism. Sigh... I picture you sitting in front of your computer staring at your McCain/Palin desktop still shedding tears of love.... You made my day with that photo.
and we get our pockets cleaned out for our trouble, on top of getting sick or dead.
![[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/kellybundy.jpg[/img]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v129/CUDA97045/kellybundy.jpg){kind=link}