Teabaggers
Offline Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline Two points of interest that EXC has continually failed to grasp for years:
1: 50% Cheaper does not equate to 50% Profit. It amounts to 50% Cheaper. As in, it costs half as much.
2: Any Canadian sent south of the border is sent and paid for by Canadian Healthcare. If we don't have the facilities, we'll send you somewhere that does. They are hardly refugees from the system. Quite the opposite.
I know EXC is incapable of understanding these very simple facts, so I don't post for his benefit. Much like the theists I argue against. I post for the people who read the discussion and have half a brain with which to understand logic and learn the way things actually work.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline Two points of interest that EXC has continually failed to grasp for years: 1: 50% Cheaper does not equate to 50% Profit. It amounts to 50% Cheaper. As in, it costs half as much. 2: Any Canadian sent south of the border is sent and paid for by Canadian Healthcare. If we don't have the facilities, we'll send you somewhere that does. They are hardly refugees from the system. Quite the opposite. I know EXC is incapable of understanding these very simple facts, so I don't post for his benefit. Much like the theists I argue against. I post for the people who read the discussion and have half a brain with which to understand logic and learn the way things actually work.
USA! USA! USA! TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT MY PRESIDENT! STOP PUNISHING SUCCESS!
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline This thread is so long I've already had 4 gay marriage abortions.
- Login to post comments
Offline This thread is so long I've already had 4 gay marriage abortions.
Impressive.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
EXC I am has conservative and right wing has anyone I have ever met; I grew up in the U.S. of A. and I have lived under Canada's system of health care for over 35 years. Thomathy is RIGHT but I do not know how to explain it better then HE DOES. We pay higher taxes then you; guess why? Nothing in health care is cheap.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Big fricken deal. Nobody cares that much when the fact is it works. 90% of the population put the sweat and hard yakka for the productivity of a country while that 5% takes the spoils, that is economics at it's best and heres you whiniging about millionaires paying $1000 more than those who are lucky to get $1000 in a month. When all is said and done people just get over it as long as it works, as long as their needs can be met by the system and no wanker with a desk and a pen gets to take it from them.
No. It's entirely, and absolutely, very very sustainable. You are wrong on this and it's been continually proven that you are wrong here.
Cause I'm not that big an arsehole, EXC. I would prefer to see doctors get to treat sick people, like they want to.
NO. We don't start competing business because we DO believe what we are saying. We do believe that the health and well being of people is not a commodity and we do believe it is not best placed in the hands of profit seeking interests, not even our own.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I have never understood why decisions about how to handle/distribute health care is left to an industry who makes a profit by not providing health care. I also don't understand how they managed to fool millions of Americans into thinking such a system is the best in the world.
Wow. Just wow. First, it's clear you didn't read anything I wrote. Second, you obviously have no clue as to how you go about starting companies, investing, or business in general.
For what must be the 5th time now: the startup costs are insanely high for this kind of business. It is comparable to starting up an automotive company. You won't be able to find people to invest in it, because it is too expensive and too risky, especially when you would be at the whims of already existing companies that dominate 80% or more of their markets. It just isn't something plausible, short of government intervention to break up the stranglehold the insurance companies have within their states.
As for insurance, I DO NOT HAVE ANY GOOD OPTIONS for insurance. They are simply not available. In the oligopoly that is the insurance market, there is nothing GOOD for me, and there is no way to GUARANTEE that I will get coverage for ANY CONDITION because they will look to drop me or use an alternative method of medicine instead, rather than what a doctor would want. My stepfather is in terrible pain right now due to this, because the insurance company will not support a medicine for some of his problems that does not conflict with medication to prevent his brother's kidney from being rejected.
What you are suggesting is akin to saying, "Oh if you don't like your cable provider start your own." While completely ignoring the fact that you have to setup billions of dollars of infrastructure that no investor wants to risk money on against the huge existing provider that already dominates the market.
In addition to this, you repeatedly ignore ALL CONTRADICTING evidence against anything you say. You say everyone can get medical care, I proved you wrong because I HAVE BEEN DENIED IT AT THE ER. How many times do I need to repeat this? I WAS REFUSED MEDICAL CARE.
I imagine you will probably completely ignore this again as you try to dodge that you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG in your assertions that everyone is happy and fantastic, with plentiful medical care and just mismanages their finances.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
i have a simple idea.
let's all agree to meet back in this forum every, oh, say 10 years. if public healthcare is truly unsustainable, surely it will collapse within the next couple decades, or at least within our lifetimes, or decay so much it practically no longer works. all of us: canadians, europeans, australians, americans: we'll come back and report on our country's situation.
if within the next several decades public healthcare does not collapse, then the idea of it ever collapsing is like waiting for the second coming.
nevermind the bullshit about "oh you have pay for loafers to get good care," i think all of us who live under and defend that system have already expressed our peace with that. nevermind the whole subjective element. we're talking in terms of pure sustainability, by which i mean an inexpensive system that provides hygienic facilities, adequately trained personnel, and universally available treatments for all treatable conditions which can seriously affect a person's health.
anyone interested?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Dude, there is a reason why wikipedia is not a valid academic source. It may, at times, serve as a starting point for other inquiries but it is never a place to use as a base for material.
Here, I will require that you note that no source was provided for the bit that you data mined. Additionally, no source for the data was provided in the entire article that may be trivially confirmed (such as actual government documents).
Further, you clearly missed yet another red flag that the data might have been faked.
The fact is that whatever the numbers may have been for a vote taken in 1964, the composition of Congress in 1860 simply has no relevance in any way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That being out of the way, I have some links for you. However, I am holding them back until you address the basic fact that you messed up on this one.
=
-------------
----------
Do you have another place I can cite online that will show records of votes from over 50 years ago? You are the one that told me to look, so I did. I'm already well aware of how the votes for that went down, as I had to research it years ago at my university for a class.
Not my problem. I can find many articles discussing the history of the southern bloc, mostly dixiecrats. Of course they will be on political websites likely so I'm not going to waste my time, it is pretty well established history that they were conservatives, and remain conservatives. They just left the democrats to join the republicans after the civil rights movement, because they didn't want to be a part of that...and the mass conservative shift in the republican party sent many liberals there over to the democrats, as well as minorities.
Which I know it isn't, because I have researched it before. If you want to dispute history do it by yourself, I'm not going to waste my time citing sources only for you to try and discredit them because you either can't check them yourself, or you don't like where the information is located. You told me to look at information I already knew, so I pulled up something which you should be able to verify with any history book of that time period. The southern bloc were pretty much lockstep against civil rights the whole way, dragged kicking and screaming along.
WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? For the second time, I have no idea what you are even trying to say. Are you still confusing democrats and republicans with conservatives and liberals? Or maybe the north vs the south in the civil war with democrats and republicans? Because if either is the case, then my answers should have elaborated why both are incorrect. You understand that the conservatives in this country were against civil rights, yes? They have moved political parties, but are still the same people in the same physical locations, with the same basic ideologies.
Messed up on what? You told me to look up voting records from a time period which I already knew...so I pulled up a wikipedia page on it, and now you are sidestepping whatever assertions you were making about political parties and conservatives/liberals, as well as terribly misrepresenting history and the civil war because you somehow think it was republicans of the north vs democrats of the south that were fighting.
Here is your document. The civil rights act of 1964, since you don't seem to believe it is real.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=97
Also, please clearly make a point. As far as I can tell, you still have not made an argument, you are just tossing wild assertions around. Was looking at the voting records during the civil rights movement supposed to convince me of something? I don't know.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
=
Tits or it didn't happen.
In this case, I require a specific link to the official US government documents that establish your claim.
Basically, you need to prove the truth of what you say.
=
But there is no rational explanation of why a non-profit co-op that does exactly what the Canadian government would not get the same results. Why must it be government run, why can't a voluntary system get the same results? Why not let people opt out of paying taxes for it and let me be an idiot and give my money to greed capitalists? How does that affect anyone else?
Why can't it be exported? If you do the math, your country would be filthy rich if what your saying is true. You wouldn't have to pay any taxes at all. All you have to do is run the same service, same coverage here in the USA to paying customers. You'd have billions pouring into your treasury every year with this 50% profit margin. If Canadians all believe this, why not start letting Americans buy in?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Yes, I do. And the things I don't know, I can hire someone. I know if the claims are correct about 50% profit margins are true, you would have no problem getting a venture capitalist or banker to give you the money to start your own insurance company. The problem is this claim is false.
No where near the same costs. To start an insurance company, you would need collateral to prove you could pay the claims should you get more claims than income. Then legal and accounting expenses. Should be no problem if you can prove your claims about massive profits to an investor. Or just get all the socialist that believe the leftist propaganda to pool your money and start a co-op.
And if the startup costs are so high as you claim, how can our government afford it? It's completely broke.
Well people did complain about the cable market. They said it was too expensive and did not provide the all the channels they wanted. The only solution was regulation. Look what happened, the free market and technology took care of the problem. If you don't like your cable company, you can go with satellite, wireless, fiber optic, etc... We don't need government intervention in the market other than to make sure there are no monopolies.
If you go to McDonald's and order a happy meal. But then you don't have any money to pay, do you say 'I was denied service'? Or do you say 'I didn't have any money to pay'? If you show up a the hospital with a giant wad of $100 bills or a cadillac health insurance, you get service.
Do you think the insurance company CEOs ever get denied service? That's why you need to aspire to become one. Easy, easy money according to your leftist propaganda.
Part of the problem is individuals never get to make the trade-offs and choices about what they want for insurance. We should get rid of the employeer provided system. Then if you want to take the risk and buy cheap-o insurance or no insurance, you get crappy care. Otherwise, you buy the coverage you want.
If you can't afford insurance, get into a government job training program that provides coverage while your in school and trains you for a job that is in demand(like nursing). This would drive down costs because we would not have labor shortages in medical services. Why do you have a problem with this kind system? Maybe a school could train you start your own insurance company and become filthy rich.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
What you are suggesting is that some Canadian province administer health care in the US in a system exactly like the one in that particular province, right? So, depending on the income level of that particular American, he or she will pay into the health care system and be covered via that payment for basic, preventative and emergency care, right? Well, if any given province did that, it wouldn't make any fucking money off it. Why? Because the money that is paid into the system is used to pay for the services rendered. It's exactly because it's not profitable that the services are a premium and cover basic, preventative and emergency care. The system gets just enough money to keep it working.
Once again, since you apparently glossed over or didn't read my post:
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
According to the socialized medicine propaganda, an individual in the USA spends twice as much and gets worse coverage and service than a Canadian. So Ontario for example could offer everyone in Michigan to buy into the Ontario system at the same rate they pay now for Aetna, Blue Cross, etc.. Americans would of course all buy in to get the better coverage. Just charge the same rate for everyone. Ontario keeps the 50% average profit on every policy. The provinces would be flush will USA dollars, Right?
I'm just showing how the socialize medice proponets must suffer from cognative dissonance. On the one hand, the savings are massive when you argue for socialize medicine. But then they are not massive if you when it comes to exporting the savings of your system. Which is it? Why don't the Canadians that believe this want to make massive profits while offering us your far superior alternative? Why can't you help us out and make the provinces filthy rich at the same time?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Interesting idea but I wouldn't want to saddle Canada with worthless currency. They'd be losing money with every transaction.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
We're still a bit ahead with the value of a dollar. What are you saying then, it's not 50% less with better service? It's only because we have bad exchange rate that is seems this way?
Since health care is a right, Canada is required to buy any drug or treatment an American company can produce no matter how expensive as long as it has some medical benefit. So all those dollars will be coming back. By making health care a right, you are slaves to our pharmaceutical and medical industry.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Against the Canadian dollar? Nope, about a dime behind.
No what I'm saying is if you wanted to buy a diamond from me but could only pay me in toilet paper - I'd be an idiot to accept.
As for drug prices, I'm not sure but I think there is a government imposed limit on how much the pharmaceutical industry is allowed to charge. It's not a collusion between the insurance companies and Big Pharma as it is here.
Here - check this out http://www.pnhp.org/news/2008/february/10_myths_about_canad.php
I'm not a big fan of the Canadian system - the french model might be better for us.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
No were still ahead.
1.00 USD
=
1.07548 CAD
But if the US dollar ever falls that much, then you could hire Americans as your indentured servants and pay us in our worthless dollars. Then Canadians could vacation all the time for being so wise as to have socialism. I'm trying to help you out here with marketing this gold mine.
But if health care is a right, then you have to pay for every cure as long as someone might die without it, right? All big pharma must do is produce one example of someone dieing without the drug. You are their slave, they can charge whatever they wish, so they have even more incentive to create expensive cures and none to create inexpensive cures.
It would be like if the government mandated that all cars must always prevent the driver from ever dieing. The auto companies would create cars with massively expensive safety systems and cars would cost $200K(USD)+ as long as someone would pay for it.
If the USA ever decided that health care was a right, the whole world would become slaves to big Pharma and the biotech industry.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
EXC, You seem to be laboring under the misconception that we are not the slaves of Big Pharma and the health insurance industry. Maybe you are in the industry or are well off enough that your short curlies are ungrabbed?
Which is better? Paying for medicine for someone who might need it or watching people die because the disease they have is not widespread enough to make medicine for it (orphan diseases)?
Which is better? Making sure that everyone has a way to get decent health care or having accountants deny coverage because they list domestic violence and c-sections as pre-existing conditions?
http://www.seiu.org/2009/09/domestic-violence-victims-have-a-pre-existing-condition.php
http://www.seiu.org/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=1&tag=cesarean%20section%20and%20pre-existing%20condition&limit=20
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Why are we slaves of Big Pharma and not other industries? Why aren't we slaves to pork farmers? Because we've made health care a kind of human right. It's like if we give kidnappers whatever price they ask. We get more kidnappings with higher and higher randsom demands. The poor are not going to be happy with not having the same treatments available as the richest person.
I don't see how socialized medicine changes this equation. Individuals or governments have to say no. But this means people will not get the treatment they believe they should get, some may die.
It's like the kidnapping dilemma. I suppose you have to go with what is best for the society at large. So that means some people may die. The role of government should be to promote the general welfare and not individual welfare.
I believe the best way is to provide job training for people so they can get into jobs or start businesses that enable them to pay for their own insurance. If the US government provides healtcare for more people without increasing supply, we will have major shortages of service providers.
And why don't people like you start a coop then that insures everyone? Why not lead a boycott against these companies? And if they don't have money to buy good insurance, isn't the solution to help them get into a position where they can buy what they need?
If someone has problems because of domestic violence, they probably have more problems than just not being able to buy insurance. Why not have people with these kinds of problems see a social worker first? Then put them into a temporary program where they can get off welfare.
The problem I have with these entitlements is they treat the symptoms and never solve the problem. When someone is completely cured, they should be able support themselves and be able to buy their own insurance. This means they would go off govenment aid. Entitlements are open ended, so people never have an incentive to get off them.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
The facilities that supply the product are private. They make money from the province (tax payer) for (in Ontario) OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) and off of private insurance. Through federal law (such that the province must maintain a minimum standard of coverage) and wage/salary standards and through other regulations we have a system capable both of offering OHIP services and covering services bought through private insurance.
I don't know what is so hard for you to understand. We pay the province to pay the hospitals, etc. to treat us under OHIP. The reason we can do this is because it's all regulated. It is not so simple in the states. For the last time, you can educate yourself about the realities of health care in Canada.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
EXC,
You sound like the typical " I want the best <x> in the world but don't raise my taxes or make me have to pay for it" that I see so much around where I live.
Where did I say that a decent health care program shouldn't be lumped in with good education and job training? You seem to forget that if people don't have good health care they won't be able to work or go to school/job training programs (private or public).
But, hey, you got yours right?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Are we still going on about this?
on a side note and far more interesting......
http://tinyurl.com/mu42x
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I'm just someone that believes the proof is in the pudding. You can't offer paying US citizens the same advantages you claim so these claims about 50% savings in medical deliver with better coverage must not be true.
Oh so you have no excess capacity and shoratages, that is why you can't take on any more clients. Well, I figued since they often send patients to the US, they would just send the US citizens to our hostpitals and doctors. They could hire some doctors in Michigan to work in your system. Why can't you just hire doctors and hospitals here?
And when the government regulates something, it leads to shortages, rationing and poor service. That's why you can't export it into a free martket, noone wants these problems associated with regulation.
Why is Walmart able to establish itself in Canada and make money there? Because it offered people better prices than the existing retailers. So if your system is more effiecient why can't it be exported into the free market and establish itself the USA if it is so superior?
Why must products be forced on people, why can't we choose in a free martet exactly what we want?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
1. Let me see... a few hundred Canadian patients being sent to the US for specialized care (the reality) vs. the entire state of Michigan for general care (what you're proposing). A minor hit on the US system vs. a major drain on the Canadian system. See the difference? I doubt it.
2. If the free market is what you say it is, our health care should be unrivaled in the world. Why doesn't reality match your picture?
3. Walmart can establish itself anywhere because they buy most of their goods from China and have a very successful system of "Screw over employees" in place.
4. If we could choose in a free market what we wanted, there would be no such thing as orphan diseases (someone would want cures). Why doesn't reality match your glowing picture?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Actually I'm against the whole concept of taxation. A small government still must be funded, but this can be done through user fees. Actually, I don't always want the best, I want to decide what I want.
That why I support limited health care for people that ask for the help and get into some education or social program. Before anyone recieve free medical treatment, they should be evaluated by a social worker, psychologist, education counselor. They should come up with a plan to get this person out of poverty and able to buy their own insurance ASAP. If people don't get with the program, they would need to be cut off from any expensive medical services.
Actually I see life as a tradeoff. Now the CEO of Aetna and members of Congress never get denied any medical treatment. They have the best doctors and hospitals. This kind of service costs $50K+ per year. So obviously everyone can't have this. I don't want to pay that much money per year because this means basically I'm a slave to the medical industry. But I may get some sickness that could kill me, but that's how I want to make the tradeoff. I'll pay for some insurance but I won't be a slave just to get any treatment that might be available.
But you don't see things as a tradeoff? We just pay as a society whatever the medical industry charges, because it's our human right?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I'd really appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Do you really need a straw man that badly?
What you describe is also nowhere near Obama's plan or the single payer plans of the countries that seem to concern you.
As for your being against taxation and for "user fees" - the user fees would be far more exhorbitant than the taxes are now. Why pay more?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You assumed my attitude was "I got mine, so screw everyone else". So if anyone makes a strawman.
That's why I asked it as question, I don't understand how people think. It seems that people believe we can make health care a human right and there is no downside. Is there no downside to any of this? Everyone get free unlimited healtcare with no requirment that you have to work for it.
Only if we allow monopolies. Government now is a monopoly. This is what makes no sense to me that leftists bitch about big oil, employers, insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies having a monopoly on the market. Then we should want to turn health care over to the biggest least accountable monopoly there is, the Federal government.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Your earlier post did sound to me like "I got mine, screw everyone else." Later you corrected it. I apologize for the misconception (something I should have done earlier). You are still mis-characterizing the Obama plan. He simply wants to add the government as a player in the insurance game.
As for allowing monopolies - the health insurance industry as it stands is not a monopoly (technically). They practice collusion over competition which makes them a monopoly in practice. Single payer does not eliminate the private option and never has. You can still get a private policy in Canada and the doctors are not government employees.
For someone who claims to be against monopolies you fight well for them. I look forward to your refusal of Social Security and Medicare. Or are you like a friend of mine who is against socialized medicine but happily takes it as active US military?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Oligopoly.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I fail to understand how people are so stupid.
Universal health care is exactly the same thing as it is now, except that there wouldn't be middle men taking a fraction of the money, ergo more money for health care.
Who is stopping you from competing against them. You believe they make massive profits, but you don't want to start a business to compete against them. If you really believe this you should be working to start a new insurance company.
Even if there was collusion, it is supposed to be the governments job to prevent this. So the politicians that are to incompetent to regulate insurance companies are going to be in charge of running hospitals and hiring doctors. Reward their incompetence and corruption with more responsibility. How insane!
But you can't opt out of paying for the public option. If you don't want the public option, why still pay taxes for it?
Do you really think I'm going to get anything? It's already way beyond broke. It's a pyramid scam, I'm more likely to get money investing with Bernie Madoff.
But that's part of the deal with signing up for military service. So this is more like an employment contract benefit. They leftist here all want to make health care a human right, so you get whatever expensive treatment a doctor deems necessary no matter what you do or don't do your whole life. It's an unsustainable relationship.
How is the government not the middleman under single payer? The government needs to have a massive bureaucracy to collect taxes, negotiate with doctors and hospitals, process claims, etc.. Same as a private insurance company. In fact collecting taxes is a very expensive, since taxes will go up, more people will try to hide their income. If you have a voluntary system of payment, there is much less overhead.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
I can't believe that it would be more expensive and even if it was, it is not really a question of money, but the question of whats right. You gotta choose what is more important - money or people.
1. What's stopping me? I'm not independently wealthy. You're slipping into "I got mine" territory again.
2. It is the government's job to prevent collusion agreed. The quickest way to do that is to rid us of the health insurance lobby and the money they dump in. No one wants to play that game. The government is a party to the collusion. I think that's what Obama wants to change.
3. Why opt out of the public option at all? It's not a big hit in the taxes and it's a good way to hedge you bets if your private insurance decides it's more profitable to screw you over.
4. I agree the system is broken. You seem to be against fixing it- why?
5. Keeping the citizens of a country healthy should be in the best interests of that country. Remember whose backs the economy sits on.
6. I still wish you'd stop assuming that the doctors will be able to go willy-nilly on tests to fatten their pockets. If you'd actually read Obama's plan or knew jack about single payer health care systems, you'd know that's not the case. Please stop disseminating information from Limbaugh and Beck.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Again, if you don't want social health care in the US, great. Why don't you leave off the system of one country (which you don't understand) and take your fight somewhere it matters? Or, try ragging on some other country's health care system. All first world nations have one except yours, so it shouldn't be too hard to find a different one -you know, for good measure.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Tons of people without money are able to start a business. All you need is a plan and evidence of the massive profits you can make. If the propaganda you believe is true, tons of venture capitalist and bankers would be more that happy to loan you the money to start an insurance company that makes 50% profit margins. So your business plan is just do what Canada does, charge people that same rate they do now, then people will switch for the better coverage. You'll be a multi-billionaire in a very short period of time. Seems like a no-brainer if you believe the propaganda. Don't you want to be filthy rich too?
OK. So the politicians can't stop collusion, price fixing among the insurance companies. But somehow I'm to believe the same politicians from the same political system could prevent this among doctors, hospitals and big pharma?
It's ridiculous to say "health care shouldn't be for profit". No one works for free, everyone wants to get paid well for their labors, so it is a for profit system no matter what laws are passed. The reason insurance companies have to deny so many claims is because doctors and hospitals are for profit enterprises. Nothing can change this. People are not going to work for free.
That's what was said about medicaid when it first came into being. But the benefits had to go up as medical industry came up with more expensive cures. Senors are largely retired and not paying into the system, but they still vote. That's why medicaid is out of control. The people getting the benefits are not the one's paying for it.
Why wouldn't a non-profit coop run by members and not the government amount to the same thing? The real agenda of the people pushing for the government to run health care is wealth redistribution. They want those with money to pay for those without.
It would be nice to have a debate on how best those with money could help those without. But the real agenda of the socialists is to create unconditional entitlements, to collect massive taxes from the successful. It's not to get people out of poverty so they can buy their own medical services.
I'm not. I think what's wrong is employer provided health care. We should stop encouraging this and let individuals buy exactly what they want. Seems like the government needs to educated people on buying insurance and not allowing deceptive policies to be sold.
Seems like the real fix is for the leftists to start their own non-profit insurance co-op that has the coverage rules they want. I don't know why they can't do this. It just seems they are too lazy and they want someone else to do the work and pay for it. But then everyone wants a free lunch.
Agreed. But some people choose not to participate in the economy, what about them? Shouldn't there be a requirement to work or at least participate in an education/rehabilitation program is one receives these benefits? And if you cover people that don't participate, won't you just get more people not participating in the economy?
But the way socialism works is that if a rich person could afford to get a bunch of tests done, then the rest of society must get this same benefit as well, otherwise it unfair. So either we restrict what doctors can do or we go broke paying for medical services.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
According to one of the posts of HisWillness, he said life saving procedures are not that expensive and therefore will not bankrupt the government. So I'm getting two stories.
Wrong, Cuba mass produces doctors:
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/02/why-are-there-so-many-cuban-doctors.html
I'd like the option of taking my money there and hiring one. If we have a government takeover here, my money is instead going to higher taxes to pay for primaddona doctors and the trial lawyers.
If the third world can produce game boys cheaply, there is no reason in a free market medical equipment could not be as well.
It's because we treat the medical industry differently that we have this problem. Doctors are treated more like gods than our service provider. If we let the free market work in medical services, we will see similar results without rationing and shortages.
Or it proves that your your economy is a failure at giving people a decent income after taxes. Since Canadians with money come to the USA to not have to wait 4 months to get a tumor removed:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/253664
So many of the people that use the service just don't have money for any other choice.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Canada does not mass produce doctors or nurses or the high cost medical equipment or supplies necessary to run a hospital.
It is amazing what you will choose to take literally and what you will choose to construe.
Or it proves that your your economy is a failure at giving people a decent income after taxes. Since Canadians with money come to the USA to not have to wait 4 months to get a tumor removed:
http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/253664
So many of the people that use the service just don't have money for any other choice.
I'm done with this conversation. You have no intention to conduct it in an honest way. In fact, this hasn't so much been a conversation as it has been a one sided attempt to continually correct your blatant dishonesty or your quote mining, misconstruing, factually inaccurate, ignorant, repetitive or irrelevant posts.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."