Health Care Reform

[Dekon]

I had posted this on another thread, and was asked to start my own - as I was very correctly and appropriately told that my post did not reply directly to the post of the original poster.

Having said that, I would like to have a friendly debate over the policy of health care. I have noticed that this is a largely conservative group, and that's fine. This post is long, but it is long because I respect all of you, your intelligence, and your ability to disagree with the points that I raise.

Having said that, here is the original post :


I first heard these statistics from Fareed Zakaria on CNN - But CNN isn't Fox News, and I imagine many consider CNN therefore 'liberal media'. And in fairness, Fareed Zakaria does seem to hve a liberal bias. So I took the time to find the statistics myself, and here's a source for them. You can find them elsewhere, but this source has them all together :


www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm


The premise of this website is a 'liberal' premise, but it is still actual unbiased statistics - they're just combined here to prove a point.

According to these statistics, the US has a lower life expectancy than all modern countries except the UK and Denmark, the worst premature death rate of -all- countries (this is recorded as several statistics - 1-4, 15-24, and any age below 64), the worst percentage of people with normal bodyweight except Sweden, and the greatest percentage of people who believe health care needs major change.

Here's the kicker - despite having the least percentage of people being covered by government health care, we PAY more percentage of our GDP for health care than ANY OTHER COUNTRY. Let me say that again - Even though we don't have universal health care like all these other 'evil socialist' countries, we spend a greater percentage of our GDP than anyone else on the small amount of universal health care we do give.

Also, privatized health care.. Really any privatized insurance.. is a bad idea.

Let's take a nice little example of privatized health care.

Fred is a health insurer, and gets 5 people to agree to pay $70 dollars a month for health care.

Now, let's explain what these 5 people have done. Each has paid for a product. They have paid for $70 of that product. In the real world, when we pay $70 for an item, we expect to get something worth $70.

However, Fred wouldn't make any money if everyone actually got $70 worth of health care. So in order to make money, the average expenses of all five people's needs needs to be -less- than $70. This may mean 1 person needs a $340 procedure, or each needs a $60 procedure, but if everyone needs a $70 procedure, Fred has a bad business model.

So now Fred gets big - he buys a building, highers employees, and now wants to make hundreds of millions of dollars. Fred's goal is still to make money. So Fred now has to cover all his expenses, plus his own wants. Fred starts working around regulations, paying less money, denying coverage, and overcharging. And suddenly the people Fred 'covers' are paying $300 when their average medical costs per month are $150 or less.

Now, if I pay $300, I expect a product worth close to that much.

Now let's say Fred has a come to Jesus moment, actually realizes that the bible never says anything like 'Jesus helps those who help themselves', and decides he actually cares about other human beings. Fred changes his goals - he doesn't want to make money any more. Fred's best option is to stop being an entrepreneur and get out of the 'Free Market', where greed and cheating win. Instead, Fred's best option is to try and find a way to bring down actual health care costs, which Fred might be able to control if he was in government - thereby being able to stop some fraud in health care. He knows that he might be able to set up a non-profit plan, whose goal isn't to make money but to actually and genuinely insure people. Fred can stop pushing unnecessary procedures on people (conservative estimates say that medical fraud occurs every 12 hours), and instead focus on giving people what they need.

Yes, there will be some waste, but Fred knows that insuring people as though health insurance were a giant public bank account rather than an attempt to get rich is a better option.

Will the government run health insurance perfectly? Of course not. But the private markets are absolutely horrible at it - because they don't care about you. They care about Mammon - the almighty god that is the dollar. And while you're afraid that the government will let you die on their plan (which is absolutely not true), the insurance companies would be more than happy to let you die if they got more money - it just so happens they get more money by putting you through a multitude of unnecessary procedures.

Lastly, let me say this - Rick Scott - the tall, thin bald guy who puts out the commercials telling you to not support this health care plan - is a health insurance company owner who was convicted of the largest health insurance fraud scheme in the US -ever-. Rick Scott is a very, very bad person, and you really shouldn't trust him.


With love and blessings
-Bryan

[avatar4321]

When did Christ ever tell us to submit our health to the government?

[Insein]

Welcome to the board. Funny, my first name is also Bryan.

Here's what I would respond with. The points you raise are accurate. Our 'Private' Health Care system does indeed need an overhaul. We pay high premiums and receive adequate service. We have coverage for alot of things 99% of us don't need but still pay for. Right now its the system we have. We certainly need to find a better way of doing things. The kicker is that alot of the problems with our healthcare system are caused by the overregulation by the government. With the government involved, it then allows special interest groups to lobby politicians to create new laws requiring insurance companies cover an even wider range than most people need. This drives up costs. They also create medical malpractice laws that cause doctors to either lose their license or carry such a high insurance premium on themselves further creating a price problem. The point is, alot of the problems we face in healthcare today are caused by the government already.

Now, why I oppose the proposed Healthcare plan in congress is because it will take a bad situation that they are mostly responsible for and make it worse by giving them complete control. What they are demanding of the American people is to give up their freedom of choice in regards to who they get their health care from and go with the government plan. Proponents will say that choice is not eliminated and that people can keep their same plans. Well ask yourself, who do you have your coverage through? Do you pay for it or does your employer? A majority of Americans have employer sponsored healthcare. Now if their is an option run by the government that does not have to meet a budget or answer to a board of directors, stock holders or creditors, how are those that do going to compete with what is essentially a non-profit health care plan?

That is the first question but then you add in the question about service. Many healthcare companies have different plans for different groups of people. Again, the system is not perfect but people generally get adequate service for when they are sick or require surgery. If someone needs a procedure, they can get it in a reasonable amount of time. With the track record of Social medicine in the UK and Canada, we see long wait times for service that is less than adequate when compared to American healthcare. Many Canadians will pay more to come to America and receive better treatment, sooner then they would for their "free" care in Canada. The inefficiency of those countries healthcare makes people fearful of government run healthcare in a nation that is 5 times larger than the UK and 10 times larger than Canada.

Finally, we look at the track record of the current administration. What they have passed so far is nothing but spend, spend, spend. We see lots of money being proposed to go to everything under the sun in exchange for more government control. Obama and Congress are buying power in the private sector. They bought the financial industry with the bailouts. They bought the car industry as well even though GM still went bankrupt after the bailout. Why does the government keep pouring money into these places if they keep failing? Because they don't care about the money. They care about the control. The more aspects of our lives they can control, the more we owe them. If we have to goto their banks to get a loan to buy their cars and then go on their healthcare plan, they run our lives. We are no longer America, Land of the free, Home of the Brave. We would become America Land of the "Secure," Home of the Cowardly.

That is a general synopsis of why I oppose this healthcare plan. Again, welcome to the board. I am glad to have any intelligent discussion and I think you'll find a majority here do as well.

[MtnBiker]

Hello Bryan, welcome to the board. Interesting post.

I am curious, why is it that life expectancy in the US is a barometer of quality healthcare? Can we quanitfy the expectancy of life equally for diverse populations?

In the free market do greed and cheating always win? What about regulation, oversight, competition? And is that the only way to prosper in a free market economy, by greed and cheating?

If Freds customers are paying for higher insurance premiums than their healthcare costs, why don't they use the function of a free market and choose a better insurer, something they will not be able to do with a government run healthcare insurance. Fred would lose customers and his business may fail, or he could improve his services to his customers and his business could prosper.

[cat slave]

There is too much abuse, fraud and waste in our present form of health care.
So therefore, there should be some changes.

BUT, gawd forbid, the government become the grand decider of who gets
what and when and for how long. That, is a death wish.

I think someone named Colin Hannan from GB has spoken a number of times
trying to warn us of what many are asking for....socialized health care.
We had better listen. If youre not old yet, you will be if you live long
enough. If youre not sick, most likely you will be if you live long enough.
And who in the world thinks WA can do anything with precision and efficiency?

No one is dying in this country for lack of care. Just ask all the illegals and
bums who wander in off the street to use our ERs as walk in clinics...that
is the reason so many are closed, but no one is ever turned away.

Kids are not going without unless their parents are too stupid or lazy to
seek out assistance for them.

My adult daughter doesnt have insurance and she has the self respect to
admit that she could buy it but she doesnt want to spend her money that
way! She is honest and wouldnt be caught dead trying to tap into the system for freebies.

I have a good friend who is a retired physician. He was part of a radiology
group. He went to a gal to get his hair cut....he paid her $15 for a hair
cut plus a tip. When she came to his group for radiology, she paid $6!
Whats wrong with this picture? The group maintained offices, employed
staff, purchased MRIs, and the latest equipment but with TN Care someone
who could only cut hair benefited from all that investment for $6.00.
All the years of training and grueling internship for that?

How long does anyone think we will have good doctors and up to date
equipment when the government gets involved. Enter the assigned sectors
with rheems of paper and government bureaucracy.

Id rather have what we have now than that nightmare. :eek::eek::eek:

[Kathianne]

Bryan, Welcome! I love your name and spelling, same as my oldest son's. ;)

When have you ever seen the government work more efficiently than the markets?

[Nukeman]

I also posted this in another thread but I will put it here as well

Have YOU ever worked in health care?? If not I would suggest you do a LOT of research on CMS and the balanced budget act of 1996. YOU if your half as intelligent as you seem will quickly connect the dots as to WHY our health system is in the shape it is.

Prices for medical services are FALSELY INFLATED, what this means is that NO ONE pays the list price, everything is negotiated down (not really the government DICTATES what they will pay). The ONLY person who actually sees a full price is a cash paying customer and only if they don't talk to the billing dept and negotiate a lower price themselves.

Tell Ya what I will throw a couple of "statistics" and numbers at you.

Medicare currently reimburses at $0.22 on the dollar That means for ever 100 dollars billed they pay 22 do the math

Medicaid currently reimburses $0.04 on the dollar, that means that for every 100 dollars billed they pay 4...... thats right 4 freaking dollars.

That my friend is your government run health care. There is DIRECT correlation between what they say they will pay and the cost of health care.

Most and by most I mean ALL hospitals and clinic can not survive on what the government is willing to pay. The only way we will continue to have advancement in medicine is with reward. Hate to break it to you but most people are just not altruistic (doesn't put food on the table for their families)...

The federal Government is the primary culprit in the current mess.

I would like to ask you a question.

Why is it that you will spend MORE money for a SAFER car, or you will spend MORE money for a better house with newer and better energy saving appliances or the next big TV or a new Blue ray DVD and all the stuff that go with it when you could just as easily drive a shit brown ford pinto live in a crappy apartment and watch TV on a black and white 13inch CRT.

Why don't you because you want the best. When you get the best it cost a little more so why all the bitching about the cost of OUR health care. Don't give me this crap of we are under every other industrialized country because we aren't. You have to remember we have 300 million people and most of the socialized countries have less that 100 million so the number are ALWAYS going to be skewed. If we have 100 people live to 100 and 10 die in gang shootings at the age of 16 guess what that skews our life expectancy... YOU have to look at the whole picture not just the little bit that one side want

[Dekon]

I'll have to begin by being honest and saying that I don't have all the answers to what's been posted against me here. I'll reply to what I can, but this has simply not been an area of deep study in my life - and I won't make statements where I don't know what I'm talking about at all.

Having said that, I will tackle this point real quick :

"Why is it that you will spend MORE money for a SAFER car, or you will spend MORE money for a better house with newer and better energy saving appliances or the next big TV or a new Blue ray DVD and all the stuff that go with it when you could just as easily drive a shit brown ford pinto live in a crappy apartment and watch TV on a black and white 13inch CRT."

I don't. I don't own a DVD player, and have no desire to. I've got a 95 Acura that runs, and I'm fine with that. I live with my father in the summer, and at the dorm in the university otherwise, and my -goal- in life is to live in a dangerous neighborhood in a small house in the inner city on half my income.. So I can give the other half away. I've really no desire for big and better stuff. So when it comes to health care, I don't need nor desire premium service.

"The point is, alot of the problems we face in healthcare today are caused by the government already. "

I'm not going to deny that the government hasn't caused problems, but I don't think the health insurance companies have been holier by any means. Again, Rick Scott is a good example of this.

I think this stems from simply differing philosophies. I understand that the founding fathers looked at government and said "government will seek power and control over you if you let it, and will cheat you if it can." And I agree - it certainly will. The problem is, the founding fathers didn't have massive corporations - which have learned to do the exact same thing. They've amassed huge power and control over people's lives, and cheat us whenever they can - and the same goes for health insurance. Because we actually elect our officials, so they have to at least be somewhat generous to us, I'm of the belief that big businesses, like health insurance companies, are of greater threat to our freedom and lives. I'd rather have to deal and wrangle a chained beast than an unchained one.

But I do feel that this is solely perspective. I happen to feel that regulation and control over the market is necessary in this day. The conservatives fear a controlling government, and I understand, agree, and respect that. I just also happen to fear the billionaire executive, and I know one can control the other.

"Well ask yourself, who do you have your coverage through? Do you pay for it or does your employer?"

I haven't had coverage in the past, because I couldn't afford it. However, I imagine I have some plan through my university. And honestly, I think a single-payer system would be better than trying to do some weird thing where people can use privatized insurance vs a public plan, because I think the public plan will be better. But we'll see - perhaps I'm wrong. It's hard to say it will be better or worse, honestly. It's a very complex idea.

"With the track record of Social medicine in the UK and Canada, we see long wait times for service that is less than adequate when compared to American healthcare"

Now I have seen enough about this that I think I can comment on it. This is only true in unnecessary procedures or procedures that are not time-sensitive. If you're on your deathbed or in agonizing pain, this is not going to hold true. And the fact of the matter is, people still are happier with their health care in the UK and Canada than here.

"They care about the control."

Not quoting the entire thing for the sake of length, but these businesses are still in control of the market. The government doesn't 'run' GM, though it has placed certain restrictions on it and some banks to keep it from making decisions that got it in these difficulties to begin with.

Having said that, part of this paragraph comes down to a matter of opinion. My opinion is simply that Obama, while he has spent a lot, is simply under the philosophy that spending will lead to an end of recession and a growth in economy. I share this view, and don't feel he is simply out to 'control'. I may be wrong, but this is my perspective. There's really no way of saying what is in the man's heart.

"When did Christ ever tell us to submit our health to the government?"

Obviously Jesus never talked about health care either way. However, Jesus was all about serving the poor, needy, and helpless. I happen to be of the opinion that privatized health care has no desire to help the poor, needy, and helpless, but instead to help whoever can pay. Yes, I know we have medicare and medicaid - but that is health submitted to the government.

"I am curious, why is it that life expectancy in the US is a barometer of quality healthcare? Can we quanitfy the expectancy of life equally for diverse populations?"

It may or may not be.. Infant mortality and obesity are also the highest. I'm not sure exactly what other statistics to use, except that we're also the least happiest with our health care except Germany and a couple other small nations.

Let me go ahead and say this now, as I've not yet - America does have the best emergency care of any nation. If you're dying, you can walk in to any hospital and be treated. And that will stay true. But on the preventative side of things - we're terrible. Yes, the homeless man can get emergency treatment if he's dying on our dime as taxpayers - as can all the poor. But if those poor could get preventative treatment that would have possibly prevented the need for that massive surgery - if our preventative treatment as a nation could help wean us off of harmful foods and overeating, and start making us a healthy nation, including regular doctor visits - wouldn't that bring down costs? Wouldn't the poor be costing us less? I'd like to think so, or at least I'd like to think a lot of suffering could be averted.

"In the free market do greed and cheating always win? What about regulation, oversight, competition? And is that the only way to prosper in a free market economy, by greed and cheating?"

I kind of have a saying these days - Communism doesn't work because it holds the belief that everyone will be equally generous - but Capitalism doesn't work because it holds to the belief that everyone will be equally greedy.

The problem is... It can get that way. It doesn't just start that way.. But one company finds a way to cheat people just a little.. Not enough that they lose significant business, but enough that they start reaping much higher profits and making bigger gains. So other companies buy in.. and then someone else cheats a little more. Suddenly we find ourselves using slave labor (if the government doesn't stop it), paying the bottom-rung associate a horrible wage (if the government doesn't stop it), and working together behind the scenes to set prices and cheat the system (if the government doesn't put an end and make it illegal). Remember the book 'The Jungle'? Isn't that the prime example of a free market, unregulated system allowed to do what it wishes? Corporations would be more than happy to have horrible working conditions and child labor.. But we make our government tell them not to. And even still.. Wal-Mart executives make (and I have two different statistics on this) either 500 or 700 times the wage of their lowest paid employees - who still often work really hard! You can't tell me those executives had 500-700 times more schooling, or worked 500-700 times as hard. All sorts of men and women in this country work 40+ hours a week, working their hands to the bone, and still barely keep themselves above water. They work -hard-. They try. It should mean something to say you make twice as much as someone else, much less three to four times.. but 500-700 times?

Yeah.. Just as government might tend to control if kept unchecked, so does business. If I can make the chained beast wrestle down the unchained beast, so be it.

"If Freds customers are paying for higher insurance premiums than their healthcare costs, why don't they use the function of a free market and choose a better insurer, something they will not be able to do with a government run healthcare insurance. Fred would lose customers and his business may fail, or he could improve his services to his customers and his business could prosper."

To my knowledge - and I could be wrong - if Fred's company is a lot like modern companies, he's working together behind the scenes to keep the status quo. But I can't fully make that claim - it's simply what I've heard.

"My adult daughter doesnt have insurance and she has the self respect to
admit that she could buy it but she doesnt want to spend her money that
way! She is honest and wouldnt be caught dead trying to tap into the system for freebies."

Now, g-d forbid your daughter falls ill, but if she suddenly did, and had to have a serious medical procedure... Wouldn't it cost all of us? She would be getting 'freebies', unless she chose a worse fate. Now if your daughter had some basic government coverage that allowed her to see a doctor on a regular basis, she might never have had to had that serious medical procedure from the beginning. It might have been a minor problem that could have been solved early and cheaply - but since she doesn't have coverage, she will go on ignorantly (and I mean that in the true sense of the word, not in the derogatory) until there was a terrible problem.

"When have you ever seen the government work more efficiently than the markets? "

I wouldn't say it's any more or less, honestly. But I will say that the markets goal is to make money, while the government's goal is to, forgive my language, kiss our asses. That's the beauty of what the founding fathers designed.



.... My head hurts. This is the problem with being in my position...

There's a lot to reply to...

Still...

With love and blessings,
-Bryan

[namvet]

he's gonna wack 500 billion/trillion/kazillion from medicare and kill seniors. now what ????

[Insein]

"When have you ever seen the government work more efficiently than the markets? "

I wouldn't say it's any more or less, honestly. But I will say that the markets goal is to make money, while the government's goal is to, forgive my language, kiss our asses. That's the beauty of what the founding fathers designed.



The government's job is to follow the Constitution. Don't kid yourself though. The government's goal is to make money. They just do it by means worse than capitalism. Instead of competing and crushing their opponents in a free market by cornering resources or marketing a superior product, they write laws that take money from those that make it and put it in their hands to redistribute. Government's job is not to make our lives easier by giving us things. Its to keep us safe from foreign evils that threaten our freedom and maintain the infrastructure to allow our free market to work. Somewhere along the way that got perverted to what we have now.

You seem like good intentioned guy, Dekon. You live a meager life by choice with the intention of giving back as much as you can. Thats wonderful. More importantly, it's your decision. Now when the government mandates that you are not allowed to give away half your money to charity but have to give it to them instead so that they redistribute the money to who they deem is worthy, how does that make you feel?

The Road to hell is paved with good intentions. Thats what the government counts on. They take advantage of those people, like yourself, that want nothing more than to help the poor and the weak. They tell you that they can do a better job at helping since they are so powerful and benevolent. Why can't you do just as good a job with the help of others around you? Are you too incompetent to handle where your charity money should go to?

It all boils down to whether or not you trust the government. If you feel that the government has our best interests at heart and are not run by individuals who are out to line their own pockets, then more power to you. Just don't be suprised when the world as you know it comes crumbling down around you.

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. I say the whole industry of healthcare is sicker than the average brain tumor pateint.
2. In order to fix it, we gotta kill it first.
3. Killing will be mercy, its time for this dragon to die.
4. Far to many people get eaten up by it.
5. Get sick, have a little cash stashed away and then boom, they're broke.
6. Ought not to happen in AMERICA.
7. If you don't have anything to lose, and or have insurance, if you can even get it, you don't have to worry bout this, perhaps.
8. But don't be surpprised if you have insurance, and you still go broke, if you have anything to go broke from.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

Welcome to the board

When this debate started, Obama and the Dems said their main goal was to prvide health ins to those who wnated it but could not afford it

That said, I do not have a porblem with some help to those US CITIZENS who want health ins but really can't afford it

Back in the days of LBJ, the government said their were citizens who went hungry but could not afford food. Did the govenment take over the food industry to feed them?

No, the government came up with food stamps

Why should the Federal government take over the health ins indusrty to provide coverage for a few million CITIZENS who can't afford health ins?

[Kathianne]

I'll have to begin by being honest and saying that I don't have all the answers to what's been posted against me here. I'll reply to what I can, but this has simply not been an area of deep study in my life - and I won't make statements where I don't know what I'm talking about at all.

Having said that, I will tackle this point real quick :

"Why is it that you will spend MORE money for a SAFER car, or you will spend MORE money for a better house with newer and better energy saving appliances or the next big TV or a new Blue ray DVD and all the stuff that go with it when you could just as easily drive a shit brown ford pinto live in a crappy apartment and watch TV on a black and white 13inch CRT."

I don't. I don't own a DVD player, and have no desire to. I've got a 95 Acura that runs, and I'm fine with that. I live with my father in the summer, and at the dorm in the university otherwise, and my -goal- in life is to live in a dangerous neighborhood in a small house in the inner city on half my income.. So I can give the other half away. I've really no desire for big and better stuff. So when it comes to health care, I don't need nor desire premium service.

A bit further down I 'see' your age, about 18-24 being the outliers? You don't know any of us, including me, which is all I may address. I'm over 50 and have 3 kids from 24-27. Their father to whom I was married over 14 years, makes over $300k per year. When I was married to him we lived in a very comfortable home, yet I clipped coupons and bought most of the kids clothes 2nd hand. Good clothes, I know them. ;) I was all into saving and conserving, the divorce left me putting those practices to good use.

I went back to school and picked up a third degree in history, so I could also pick up teaching credentials. I'd already had two degrees, one from U of I in political science, second in sociology from U of Chicago. For a large portion of the time I had to walk to the college for the history degree, had to make it local, Elmhurst College. Quite high ranking in education and not a loser in history.

I'm far from an idiot as far as politics or common sense go.



"The point is, alot of the problems we face in healthcare today are caused by the government already. "Indeed, so why would you think that's the solution?

I'm not going to deny that the government hasn't caused problems, but I don't think the health insurance companies have been holier by any means. Again, Rick Scott is a good example of this.

I think this stems from simply differing philosophies. Huh?I understand that the founding fathers looked at government and said "government will seek power and control over you if you let it, and will cheat you if it can." And I agree - it certainly will. The problem is, the founding fathers didn't have massive corporations - which have learned to do the exact same thing. They've amassed huge power and control over people's lives, and cheat us whenever they can - and the same goes for health insurance. Because we actually elect our officials, so they have to at least be somewhat generous to us, I'm of the belief that big businesses, like health insurance companies, are of greater threat to our freedom and lives. I'd rather have to deal and wrangle a chained beast than an unchained one.Why? Can you articulate, why?

But I do feel that this is solely perspective. I happen to feel that regulation and control over the market is necessary in this day. The conservatives fear a controlling government, and I understand, agree, and respect that. I just also happen to fear the billionaire executive, and I know one can control the other.It's time to face, why? You've heard it, you 'believe' it, so now explain why you believe that some 'billionaire executive', (names please), is the reason we need Obama's plan.

"Well ask yourself, who do you have your coverage through? Do you pay for it or does your employer?"Huh? My employer pays for my health care, with my monthly contribution. When I see doc I pay my co and then some until I hit my coverage. Then I pay the co.

I haven't had coverage in the past, because I couldn't afford it. Hmm, you sound pretty privileged, we are to believe you aren't covered under your father's or mother's insurance?However, I imagine I have some plan through my university. Indeed, if not on one of your parents plans, you should sign up for like $12 a month for university. And honestly, I think a single-payer system would be better than trying to do some weird thing where people can use privatized insurance vs a public plan, because I think the public plan will be better. But we'll see - perhaps I'm wrong. It's hard to say it will be better or worse, honestly. It's a very complex idea.Sounds like you have the talking points down, but no understanding of what you're addressing.

"With the track record of Social medicine in the UK and Canada, we see long wait times for service that is less than adequate when compared to American healthcare"

Now I have seen enough about this that I think I can comment on it. This is only true in unnecessary procedures or procedures that are not time-sensitive. Like knee and hip replacements? If you're on your deathbed or in agonizing pain, this is not going to hold true. Right you are, they are going to make you comfortable to die, giving you the status of death bed. That's what you want for your grandma and grandpa, right? And the fact of the matter is, people still are happier with their health care in the UK and Canada than here.Got a link?

"They care about the control."Who?

Not quoting the entire thing for the sake of length, but these businesses are still in control of the market. What businesses? The government doesn't 'run' GM, though it has placed certain restrictions on it and some banks to keep it from making decisions that got it in these difficulties to begin with.Whiplash!

Having said that, part of this paragraph comes down to a matter of opinion. Actually you started a new paragraph. I've yet to see anything but opinion before this point. My opinion is simply that Obama, while he has spent a lot, is simply under the philosophy that spending will lead to an end of recession and a growth in economy. I share this view, and don't feel he is simply out to 'control'. I may be wrong, but this is my perspective. There's really no way of saying what is in the man's heart.Why? Upon what philosophy or historical perspective?

"When did Christ ever tell us to submit our health to the government?"Huh? Is this a WWJD moment?

Obviously Jesus never talked about health care either way. However, Jesus was all about serving the poor, needy, and helpless. I happen to be of the opinion that privatized health care has no desire to help the poor, needy, and helpless, but instead to help whoever can pay. Yes, I know we have medicare and medicaid - but that is health submitted to the government.

"I am curious, why is it that life expectancy in the US is a barometer of quality healthcare? Can we quanitfy the expectancy of life equally for diverse populations?"

It may or may not be.. Infant mortality and obesity are also the highest. I'm not sure exactly what other statistics to use, except that we're also the least happiest with our health care except Germany and a couple other small nations.Links?

Let me go ahead and say this now, as I've not yet - America does have the best emergency care of any nation. If you're dying, you can walk in to any hospital and be treated. And that will stay true. But on the preventative side of things - we're terrible. Yes, the homeless man can get emergency treatment if he's dying on our dime as taxpayers - as can all the poor. But if those poor could get preventative treatment that would have possibly prevented the need for that massive surgery - if our preventative treatment as a nation could help wean us off of harmful foods and overeating, and start making us a healthy nation, including regular doctor visits - wouldn't that bring down costs? Wouldn't the poor be costing us less? I'd like to think so, or at least I'd like to think a lot of suffering could be averted.You really haven't a clue, do you? What a mish mash of stuff.

"In the free market do greed and cheating always win? What about regulation, oversight, competition? And is that the only way to prosper in a free market economy, by greed and cheating?"

I kind of have a saying these days - Communism doesn't work because it holds the belief that everyone will be equally generous - but Capitalism doesn't work because it holds to the belief that everyone will be equally greedy.So, if we could only 'perfect' Communism? Right?

The problem is... It can get that way. It doesn't just start that way.. But one company finds a way to cheat people just a little.. Not enough that they lose significant business, but enough that they start reaping much higher profits and making bigger gains. So other companies buy in.. and then someone else cheats a little more. Suddenly we find ourselves using slave labor (if the government doesn't stop it), paying the bottom-rung associate a horrible wage (if the government doesn't stop it), and working together behind the scenes to set prices and cheat the system (if the government doesn't put an end and make it illegal). Remember the book 'The Jungle'? Isn't that the prime example of a free market, unregulated system allowed to do what it wishes? Corporations would be more than happy to have horrible working conditions and child labor.. But we make our government tell them not to. And even still.. Wal-Mart executives make (and I have two different statistics on this) either 500 or 700 times the wage of their lowest paid employees - who still often work really hard! You can't tell me those executives had 500-700 times more schooling, or worked 500-700 times as hard. All sorts of men and women in this country work 40+ hours a week, working their hands to the bone, and still barely keep themselves above water. They work -hard-. They try. It should mean something to say you make twice as much as someone else, much less three to four times.. but 500-700 times?

Yeah.. Just as government might tend to control if kept unchecked, so does business. If I can make the chained beast wrestle down the unchained beast, so be it.

"If Freds customers are paying for higher insurance premiums than their healthcare costs, why don't they use the function of a free market and choose a better insurer, something they will not be able to do with a government run healthcare insurance. Fred would lose customers and his business may fail, or he could improve his services to his customers and his business could prosper."

To my knowledge - and I could be wrong - if Fred's company is a lot like modern companies, he's working together behind the scenes to keep the status quo. But I can't fully make that claim - it's simply what I've heard.

"My adult daughter doesnt have insurance and she has the self respect to
admit that she could buy it but she doesnt want to spend her money that
way! She is honest and wouldnt be caught dead trying to tap into the system for freebies."

Now, g-d forbid your daughter falls ill, but if she suddenly did, and had to have a serious medical procedure... Wouldn't it cost all of us? She would be getting 'freebies', unless she chose a worse fate. Now if your daughter had some basic government coverage that allowed her to see a doctor on a regular basis, she might never have had to had that serious medical procedure from the beginning. It might have been a minor problem that could have been solved early and cheaply - but since she doesn't have coverage, she will go on ignorantly (and I mean that in the true sense of the word, not in the derogatory) until there was a terrible problem.

"When have you ever seen the government work more efficiently than the markets? "

I wouldn't say it's any more or less, honestly. But I will say that the markets goal is to make money, while the government's goal is to, forgive my language, kiss our asses. That's the beauty of what the founding fathers designed.



.... My head hurts. This is the problem with being in my position...

There's a lot to reply to...

Still...

With love and blessings,
-Bryan

I had to stop, Bryan. My head was really hurting. You sound like a nice, but seriously underinformed kid. Kid emphasized. Dependent on Dad or university. Clueless to life.

[Mr. P]

I see we have another kid to raise. I think the board should have a test or at least an age limit to gain membership. :eek: :thumb:

PS..speaking of kids, what's happened to LN, found a "boyfriend" maybe?

[Joe Steel]

This post is long, but it is long because I respect all of you, your intelligence, and your ability to disagree with the points that I raise.

You're making a big mistake.

Most conservatives are not intelligent and don't have a capacity to disagree other than by spewing talking points and vulgarities.

[red states rule]

You're making a big mistake.

Most conservatives are not intelligent and don't have a capacity to disagree other than by spewing talking points and vulgarities.

You have to say that Joe because you always lose the debate and end up running away faster then an elected Demcrat from their constituents

[Joe Steel]

Having said that, I would like to have a friendly debate over the policy of health care.

The health care issue is best framed by pondering one simple question: how much would you pay to save your life?

Would you pay all you have or only some?

The health care industry is betting you'll pay everything so they'll raise their prices until you have nothing left. The only way to stop that from happening is government control of the market. Get profit out of health care and we'll all be better-off.


You have to say that Joe because you always lose the debate and end up running away faster then an elected Demcrat from their constituents

See what I mean? They're not very intelligent. This guy thinks getting hammered daily means he's winning. I think his constant spinning has made him permanently dizzy.

[red states rule]

The health care issue is best framed by pondering one simple question: how much would you pay to save your life?

Would you pay all you have or only some?

The health care industry is betting you'll pay everything so they'll raise their prices until you have nothing left. The only way to stop that from happening is government control of the market. Get profit out of health care and we'll all be better-off.

If you are Obama, Reid, or Pelosi - and the person is a senior citizen the answer is not much. The treatments must be cost effictive. But you will pay for end of life counseling

If you are Obama, Reid, or Pelosi, and the person is an unborn child - nothing but you will pay to have it killed via abortion

If you are Obama, Reid, or Pelosi and the person has cancer - you will not pay for chemo but you will pay for doctor assisted suicide

[Joe Steel]

If you are Obama, Reid, or Pelosi - and the person is a senior citizen the answer is not much.

Once again you don't understand the issue. The question is for you as an individual. How much of your own money would you pay to save your own life?

[Nukeman]

The health care issue is best framed by pondering one simple question: how much would you pay to save your life?

Would you pay all you have or only some?

The health care industry is betting you'll pay everything so they'll raise their prices until you have nothing left. The only way to stop that from happening is government control of the market. Get profit out of health care and we'll all be better-off.Know what Joe, your partially right. We don't have to take all profit out though. Without it YOU will NEVER have any a advancement or new equipment.

Unfortunately EVERYONE including those pesky health care facilities are in need of some profit if for no other reason than for reinvestment.... Or do yo think the Government is going to give them the money every time they need new supplies or equipment.??

[namvet]

Once again you don't understand the issue. The question is for you as an individual. How much of your own money would you pay to save your own life?

won't cost you a cent Joe Blow. when your old enough Osama will have you put to sleep

[Mr. P]

The health care issue is best framed by pondering one simple question: how much would you pay to save your life?

Would you pay all you have or only some?

...

Actually the health care issue is best framed by pondering this question: Do you want the right to spend as much or as little as you choose to save your life, or do you want the Government to make that choice for you?

[namvet]

Osama wants the same choices Hitler had. to decide who lives and who dies. and we need a "final solution" for Osama

[avatar4321]

"In the free market do greed and cheating always win? What about regulation, oversight, competition? And is that the only way to prosper in a free market economy, by greed and cheating?"

I kind of have a saying these days - Communism doesn't work because it holds the belief that everyone will be equally generous - but Capitalism doesn't work because it holds to the belief that everyone will be equally greedy.


If I may be so bold, i think this is where your flaw is. Capitalism is nothing but the natural law of economics. It's a system where people are free to make their own choices for what they want. And the reason capitalism is so productive is because every person on earth has self interest. There is a difference between greed and self interest.

It's absolutely false that the only way to prosper in a free maret economy is by greed and cheating. All you need to prosper in a free market economy is the ability to work hard and a skill or product others want. In fact, you make more money by giving people exactly what they want than by cheating them.

[avatar4321]

The health care issue is best framed by pondering one simple question: how much would you pay to save your life?

Would you pay all you have or only some?

The health care industry is betting you'll pay everything so they'll raise their prices until you have nothing left. The only way to stop that from happening is government control of the market. Get profit out of health care and we'll all be better-off.

How much is your health worth? if you care about money more than your health, then yeah the costs will be too much.

The health care costs would be so high to begin with if the government wasnt artificially raising costs.

You still seem to think we are somehow entitled to someone elses labor simply because it might save our life. No one is obligated to work for us. We did away with slavery years ago.

[cat slave]

You're making a big mistake.

Most conservatives are not intelligent and don't have a capacity to disagree other than by spewing talking points and vulgarities.

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

However, you are missing a lot if you do not recognize that the problem is
on both sides of the aisle. I am conservative on most issues, but cannot
claim to be a Pub anymore....they are no longer conservatives. There are
radicals on both sides, but the hugest issue is that we preserve our freedoms
and not be savagely consumed by a monstrous all knowing, all deciding
government.

Unless of course, you want the womb to the tomb nanny state. That
would clear it up wouldnt it.

[Insein]

That is your opinion and you are welcome to it.

However, you are missing a lot if you do not recognize that the problem is
on both sides of the aisle. I am conservative on most issues, but cannot
claim to be a Pub anymore....they are no longer conservatives. There are
radicals on both sides, but the hugest issue is that we preserve our freedoms
and not be savagely consumed by a monstrous all knowing, all deciding
government.

Unless of course, you want the womb to the tomb nanny state. That
would clear it up wouldnt it.

Honestly, that is what Joe wants. He is for the Soviet Socialist Republic of America.

[cat slave]

...I can tell!

[namvet]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/files/images/rc/rclogo.jpg


in reality????


http://i30.tinypic.com/2s1uoih.jpg

[Trigg]

Dekon,

I'd like to know who your source is for Canada's socialized medicine and why you think they like it so much?????

My sister lives in Finland.....that is where my knowledge comes from.



Having said that, my brother in law was having problems and was told he would have to wait 3 months for an MRI. He was getting no where with his "free" physicians assistant (I trust you know what that is). He finally paid out of pocket to see a real Dr. in order to clear up his condition.

They have a chronic shortage of Dr's. Afterall, why go to school for 10yrs and come out making the same amount as a plummer???


I've also lived in Florida, winter home of all those happy retired Canadians, who plug up the healthcare facilities every year. Why do they need to have Cardiologists down there when it's FREE in Canada????????

Do yourself a favor and talk to a nurse or any healthcare worker and also look up Canada's healthcare problems. Hint: they have a Dr shortage also.

[emmett]

Hmmmmm.....


the kid actually has me thinking. He really believes this stuff. As Kathy mentioned, he is a nice kid and has the talking points down real well. He just does not understand the complexities of what his opinions represent. I say she nailed it.

Now ...in Dekons defense. Son, I would think it a wonderful thing to be able to provide proper health care for everyone in our country...regardless of who or what they were. It would be wonderful to think we lived in a society where this could come to fruition. Each member you are debating with here would agree with my point.

Once up on a time we thought it would be wonderful if each and every American had a retirement account. We decided to call it Social Security. It has turned out to be Social all right but it has nothing to do with "security."

We also came up with some other absolutely wonderful "ideas" through the years. Wouldn't it be wonderful if no soveriegn American ever had to go hungary? Well, we addressed that. We came up with Food Stamps, welfare, unemployment insurance, mediacre and medicaid. All of them are miserable failures ran by government.

Government even decided to enter into the equation of providing Homes to low income Americans. Divisions of finance (FM and FM) had government backing. Beaurocrats such as Barney Frank decided to use these entities as not only their dimented sexual playground but forced them to loan bad money in order to get fair paper opportunity. Again, a miserable failure.

I don;t guess I really need to go on. EVERYTHING government has ever controlled, has been a failure. When you eliminate competition from the private sector, you eliminate service. We all know that. What those of us who are afraid to risk and acheive do not understand is that everything comes with a price. To think that we can just continue to tax those who have sacrificed to go out and earn more than the rest of us so we can pilfer their success and suck off of them is how you create an ineffective and very unproductive society.

When you give something to someone for free and ask nothing in return you are not helping them. You are in essence hurting them more than if you would not have gotten involved to begin with. When you do it so you can get their vote because it is as valuable to you as the guy who has went out and strived to acheive, you are a manipulating political hack and nothing more.

I am of the mindset that the Liberal left is being used to keep corrupt left wing politicians in power...plain and simple. In the 60's, it was Democrats like George Wallace, Lester Maddox and Hubert Humphrey who stood for keeping blacks in the back of the bus. Now today, simply because they have changed their message, liberals file out in numbers to buy into their losing schemes.

Wake up man. Don't be led by the hand to a place like the Socialist States of America so some politician can fly around in 600 million dollar planes and eat your tax dollars for lunch when he claims he is giving you something for free. America has to be smarter than that.

[emmett]

Tell you what Dekon.....


Here on Dp we have a One on One forum which allows only two members to discuss an issue head to head and no one can can intervene. Usually we do attach a comments thread where others can inject their opinion on who is gaining the upper hand in the debate.

I personally am a big fan of this thread and you may notice have an ongoing feud going with my good friend Crin, an astute, well respected member of our community at this time. Even as we speak he is no doubt sitting at home asking his wife how to address the last points I have made in that argument (LOL) so he can come back with something that will make me wiggle a little. The debate is Libertarian vs. Republican, you may want to check that out and comment on it if you wish.

I mention this because I notice you have made reference to the fact that you have been ganged up on by the Republicans / Conservatives on here a bit. I understand. That is why I have just come from cleaning up my sword and am prepared to duel with you on that very thread about Health care Reform. In essence my young friend, you have been chosen......and challenged to a duel with the mighty...El De Bator.

Now I understand that this must be a terribly intimidating experience for you having been singled out by a member of staff such as myself, who appears larger than life in knowledge, debating skill and reputation stature but believe me when I say.......It is TRUE! Fear me son! I am the mighty El De Bator and I have challenged you to a debating duel on this subject. Grab your armor and your sword and confront me in the One on One Discussion thread if you dare to rise to the occasion of this most intimidating challenge. LOL

[Trigg]

I see he jumped at the chance.......crickets

[Binky]

Tell you what Dekon.....


Here on Dp we have a One on One forum which allows only two members to discuss an issue head to head and no one can can intervene. Usually we do attach a comments thread where others can inject their opinion on who is gaining the upper hand in the debate.

I personally am a big fan of this thread and you may notice have an ongoing feud going with my good friend Crin, an astute, well respected member of our community at this time. Even as we speak he is no doubt sitting at home asking his wife how to address the last points I have made in that argument (LOL) so he can come back with something that will make me wiggle a little. The debate is Libertarian vs. Republican, you may want to check that out and comment on it if you wish.

I mention this because I notice you have made reference to the fact that you have been ganged up on by the Republicans / Conservatives on here a bit. I understand. That is why I have just come from cleaning up my sword and am prepared to duel with you on that very thread about Health care Reform. In essence my young friend, you have been chosen......and challenged to a duel with the mighty...El De Bator.

Now I understand that this must be a terribly intimidating experience for you having been singled out by a member of staff such as myself, who appears larger than life in knowledge, debating skill and reputation stature but believe me when I say.......It is TRUE! Fear me son! I am the mighty El De Bator and I have challenged you to a debating duel on this subject. Grab your armor and your sword and confront me in the One on One Discussion thread if you dare to rise to the occasion of this most intimidating challenge. LOL



:laugh2::laugh2: Gotta hand it to you Emmet. You have a way with words that will either draw him to your sword, or have him making tracks to get out of the way. :laugh2:

[namvet]

Osama to seniors: "DROP DEAD"

D2ngTc_f16A

probably the biggest reason ill have to leave this country

[Gaffer]

Did my follow up visit to my doctor today. Found out some interesting things. The infection I had was in my urinary track, my bladder and my right kidney. It had also got into my blood stream which was making me even more sick. Another two days and it would have killed me. The emergency room I went to did all the tests they could and then put me in the hospital. No questions asked. They also informed my primary care doctor of everything they were doing.

Under this new health care bill I would have been evaluated and have to wait for treatment until everything was approved. Not to mention they would evaluate whether I should even be treated as I am on disability. Therefore limited treatment and early death saves the government money. I'm lucky I got sick before the bill could be passed.

[namvet]

Did my follow up visit to my doctor today. Found out some interesting things. The infection I had was in my urinary track, my bladder and my right kidney. It had also got into my blood stream which was making me even more sick. Another two days and it would have killed me. The emergency room I went to did all the tests they could and then put me in the hospital. No questions asked. They also informed my primary care doctor of everything they were doing.

Under this new health care bill I would have been evaluated and have to wait for treatment until everything was approved. Not to mention they would evaluate whether I should even be treated as I am on disability. Therefore limited treatment and early death saves the government money. I'm lucky I got sick before the bill could be passed.

that was a close call pal. glad your OK. also great timing. that's why i call it deathcare

[Gaffer]

that was a close call pal. glad your OK. also great timing. that's why i call it deathcare

The dark lords deathcare. Has a certain ring to it.

[namvet]

The dark lords deathcare. Has a certain ring to it.

I have medical issues. im not about to give him a chance to kill me. if it pass's I am gone !!!!