Health Care: The GREAT debate

[O-Mac]

Really.
Does the GOP have a better solution to solving the health care problem? If they do, what is it? and will their solution really work?

Will the DEMS solution work? Does anyone really know what will work and what won't?

Is doing nothing the answer?

How much easier would finding a solution be if GREED were not part of the equation?

[involuntary_serf]

Really.
Does the GOP have a better solution to solving the health care problem? If they do, what is it? and will their solution really work?

I doubt the GOP has a better plan. That, of course, doesn't automatically make the Democratic plan good.


Will the DEMS solution work?

Well it depends on what you men by "work". If you mean provide everyone super-great health care for their entire lives for super-low-cost...then no, it won't work. If you mean provide decent health care at a decent cost...then no, it won't work. If you mean provide poor health care at a high cost...then yes, it will work. But that won't get in anyone's way.


Does anyone really know what will work and what won't?

Well getting the government out of health care and health insurance would be a good start on the way to American's health care system recovery and repair.


Is doing nothing the answer?

It depends on what you mean but "doing nothing". If you mean leaving it as it currently is...then no, that's not the answer. If you mean the government getting the fuck out at leaving it alone...then yes, doing nothing is the answer.

How much easier would finding a solution be if GREED were not part of the equation?

What greed are you speaking of here? Is this the "greed" of everyone wanting world class health care but wanting someone else to pay for it? That greed? Or have yo confused profit with greed?

[groverat]

Well getting the government out of health care and health insurance would be a good start on the way to American's health care system recovery and repair.

Why?

Is this the "greed" of everyone wanting world class health care but wanting someone else to pay for it?

We pay twice what everyone else does.
We get less for it.

Why is that?

[involuntary_serf]

Why?



We pay twice what everyone else does.
We get less for it.

Why is that?

In the simplest terms, in any given market the prices, the amount of innovation, the level of product and service quality and number of features are a factor of the amount of competition (i.e., the number of competitors) and how much control the customer has over product, service and provider choice and how directly they are paying for said products and services.

In the health care market the government (at both the state and federal levels) has implemented such a wide array of regulations and restrictions (anyone who thinks the American health care and health insurance marketplace is a "free-market" is either ignorant, stupid or delusional) that it significantly constrains and limits the number of competitive entrants as well as regulations that have the effect of limiting customer choice and disconnecting the customer (patient) from actual payment.

They are effectively proposing more of this (even though they claim the opposite).

The end result of all this is less competition (doesn't mean none), less innovation (doesn't mean none), higher prices, lower quality (doesn't mean dismal), and fewer options (doesn't mean none).

For comparison look at markets that have comparatively little regulation and restriction (and no the banking and financial markets don't count...these are not deregulated free-for-alls either!)

[FloorJack]

Really.
Does the GOP have a better solution to solving the health care problem? If they do, what is it? and will their solution really work?

Will the DEMS solution work? Does anyone really know what will work and what won't?

Is doing nothing the answer?

How much easier would finding a solution be if GREED were not part of the equation?

It might be a good idea to do some scant research and present the results before starting a thread. If you don't know what the plans are of the two major parties you may want to look them up and present them as a way of starting the discussion.

[groverat]

In the simplest terms, in any given market the prices, the amount of innovation, the level of product and service quality and number of features are a factor of the amount of competition (i.e., the number of competitors) and how much control the customer has over product, service and provider choice and how directly they are paying for said products and services.

If we accept that the amount of competition will increase efficiency and quality and price, why does removing the public option as competition make sense?

Wouldn't we want more competition?

In the health care market the government (at both the state and federal levels) has implemented such a wide array of regulations and restrictions (anyone who thinks the American health care and health insurance marketplace is a "free-market" is either ignorant, stupid or delusional) that it significantly constrains and limits the number of competitive entrants as well as regulations that have the effect of limiting customer choice and disconnecting the customer (patient) from actual payment.

What types of regulations, specifically?

For comparison look at markets that have comparatively little regulation and restriction (and no the banking and financial markets don't count...these are not deregulated free-for-alls either!)

Like where?

[involuntary_serf]

If we accept that the amount of competition will increase efficiency and quality and price, why does removing the public option as competition make sense?

Wouldn't we want more competition?

Yes we do want more competition, but the government is not a true free-market competitor for two reasons:

1) it gets its revenue by force rather than through voluntary exchange. If I choose not to use the government provided service I don't also get to withdraw my money from it, I am still paying for it directly or indirectly in taxes. This is much like so-called "school choice". Someone surely can choose to homeschool their kids or send them to a private school, but they still must pay for the public option. This sets the public schools up as a "competitor" with special privileges.

2) it gets to make and enforce the rules that all other competitors must conform to and so is in a very unique position to create and enforce rules that benefit the government provided service at the expense of the non-government service providers.


What types of regulations, specifically?

I don't the list of every single state and federal law and regulation governing the health care and health insurance markets handy. If you wish to feign ignorance here, that's fine by me. I'll try to be more specific:

- laws that require companies of certain size to provide health insurance (as opposed to simply letting consumers go an buy their insurance privately) distort the market in such a way that reduces choice for the consumers. The structure of taxable income and benefits in this area further distort this creating a situation where consumers are not really out there shopping for insurance like they do for car or home or life insurance, but rather are almost a "captive" audience for a pre-selected plan or set of plans. There are also regulations that limit and govern who can sell insurance, how insurance premiums can be priced, etc.

- laws and regulations that license health care providers (doctors, nurses, clinics, etc.) limit the number that can enter this market and have the effect of keeping supply low (relative to demand) and thus prices higher.

I don't have the time to research and list every single regulation that governs this area of the economy.


Like where?

I would say something like the consumer electronics market or even the food business. Comparatively speaking these are much less regulated and yet each of these provide an example of markets that offer a stunning array of choices at different price points, different quality levels, different feature sets, different locations, etc. The food business is a particularly good example. Yes there are health and cleanliness regulations but very little else. As a result you have an amazing range of choices from buying a huge range of products to make food from scratch, semi-prepared, fully prepared, delivered, pick-up, really cheap, really expensive, really fast, really slow, huge varieties of the types of food (e.g., various ethnic foods, etc.) It is quite amazing the range of options in fact. And, I think, one could argue that food is just as essential as health care.

[vinea]

In markets with little regulation and restriction (given today's other, more general laws) you will find competition and good service in areas that are profitable, less competition and lesser service in areas less profitable and no service in areas that are unprofitable.

So you end up where some folks (typically more affluent) are well served, some folks (typically poorer) who are underserved and other folks (with no money) not served at all.

Take regional air service as an example. If there wasn't Federal subsidy there would be some areas of the country with no air service at all as a result of deregulation.

[Frank777]

If we accept that the amount of competition will increase efficiency and quality and price, why does removing the public option as competition make sense?

Wouldn't we want more competition?

Because the government does not allow competition with the Government.
They will undercut private sector health care with taxpayer money, and then outlaw it.

Actually, they went straight to outlawing it (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854).

After outlawing private insurance, they will outlaw extra billing by doctors, then outlaw private medical testing. They will claim that the private system "drains resources" from the public system and thus Americans must take these steps to protect a program that "defines what it means to be American".

Welcome to hell Grove. Get accustomed to words like "Doctor Shortage", "Bed Closures" and "Waiting Lists". Soon Americans will be dying in hospital corridors just like the rest of us.

(Hat tip SDA (http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/011833.html#comments))

[Trajectory]

I'm an American living in Canada, so, I have first-hand experience with both healthcare systems. The Canadian system is pretty amazing, and it only costs me $45 a month. No co-pays or pre-existing conditions or pre-approvals for procedures or changing your rate if you use it too much or limiting what doctors you can see. The only drawback is that you sometimes have to wait longer for procedures that are elective. Otherwise, it puts the American healthcare system to shame.

It works very well, despite some people trying to convince you otherwise with their doom-and-gloom scenarios.

[jazzguru]

If we accept that the amount of competition will increase efficiency and quality and price, why does removing the public option as competition make sense?

I posted this in the "Obama's Noble Lies" thread, but the "public option" is essentially a lie intended to win enough support to pass ObamaCare. They have no intention of allowing competition.

The Truth of Obama’s Trojan Horse (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/07/09/the-truth-of-obamas-trojan-horse/)

[jazzguru]

I'm an American living in Canada, so, I have first-hand experience with both healthcare systems. The Canadian system is pretty amazing, and it only costs me $45 a month. No co-pays or pre-existing conditions or pre-approvals for procedures or changing your rate if you use it too much or limiting what doctors you can see. The only drawback is that you sometimes have to wait longer for procedures that are elective. Otherwise, it puts the American healthcare system to shame.

It works very well, despite some people trying to convince you otherwise with their doom-and-gloom scenarios.

What it comes down to for me is who should be making the decisions about your own health: you and your doctor, or a pencil pusher in a government office who has never seen or met you and is only concerned with budgets and quotas?

[Frank777]

I'm an American living in Canada, so, I have first-hand experience with both healthcare systems. The Canadian system is pretty amazing, and it only costs me $45 a month. No co-pays or pre-existing conditions or pre-approvals for procedures or changing your rate if you use it too much or limiting what doctors you can see. The only drawback is that you sometimes have to wait longer for procedures that are elective. Otherwise, it puts the American healthcare system to shame.

It works very well, despite some people trying to convince you otherwise with their doom-and-gloom scenarios.

Single-payer is indeed a good system, but if you think that Canadian medicare costs $45. a month you are incredibly mistaken.

And saying that elective procedures are the only ones with wait lists is an outright lie.

Don't forget the Canadian system also works because we can ship patients across the border (e.g. to Buffalo, NY) when we need to, and patients can go to Buffalo for those pesky 'elective' tests they are in line for here.

If the U.S. private system is unavailable to relieve the pressure on Medicare, waiting lists here will significantly increase.

I don't have a problem with the Single Payer model, along as reality is respected and a comprehensive private system is allowed alongside. Even left-wingers, realizing the flaws in medicare, protect access to private clinics for their beloved "reproductive choice" mills.

A six year old girl died in Brampton last month of swine flu because her parents tried to drive to a rural hospital instead of an urban one. The average wait before seeing an ER doctor at the Brampton hospital is 17.5 hours (http://www.independentfreepress.com/news/article/72409).

So yeah, the system's great. Until you really need it.

[Trajectory]

What it comes down to for me is who should be making the decisions about your own health: you and your doctor, or a pencil pusher in a government office who has never seen or met you and is only concerned with budgets and quotas?

In the US, my health insurance company decided what procedures I could get or not. Here in Canada, my doctor decides.

[jazzguru]

In the US, my health insurance company decided what procedures I could get or not. Here in Canada, my doctor decides.

Subject to approval by the government.

[Trajectory]

Single-payer is indeed a good system, but if you think that Canadian medicare costs $45. a month you are incredibly mistaken.

And saying that elective procedures are the only ones with wait lists is an outright lie.

Don't forget the Canadian system also works because we can ship patients across the border (e.g. to Buffalo, NY) when we need to, and patients can go to Buffalo for those pesky 'elective' tests they are in line for here.

If the U.S. private system is unavailable to relieve the pressure on Medicare, waiting lists here will significantly increase.

I don't have a problem with the Single Payer model, along as reality is respected and a comprehensive private system is allowed alongside. Even left-wingers, realizing the flaws in medicare, protect access to private clinics for their beloved "reproductive choice" mills.

A six year old girl died in Brampton last month of swine flu because her parents tried to drive to a rural hospital instead of an urban one. The average wait before seeing an ER doctor at the Brampton hospital is 17.5 hours (http://www.independentfreepress.com/news/article/72409).

Well, my monthly healthcare payment is $45 a month. Not sure what you are getting at. In the US, even if you pay $300 a month, that alone doesn't cover the cost of complete medical care, so, what's your point? It's subsidized by someone, whether it be a government or insurance company.

As for that article you linked to, do you not think US emergency rooms have long waits? I waited for 14 hours in a NYC emergency room in agonizing pain, and I had health insurance! The emergency rooms in the US become the doctor's office for the millions of uninsured people, so, as a result, they get overwhelmed often. And before they would treat me, they wanted to know how it would be paid for. Then there's the deductible: I had to pay over $500 for that service ON TOP OF my high monthly insurance fee.

I agree that wait times for medical care can be a bit long in Canada, but, if it's for something life-threatening or chronic pain, you get taken care of a lot faster than elective procedures. It's not that much different in the US, actually, unless you have gold-plated health insurance which only a small fraction of the population can afford. The reason you may be able to get faster service in the US is because fewer people have access to the healthcare system there. But that is certainly not the case for everyone.

Besides, there are already a few private medical clinics here in Canada where you can go and get immediate service, but, you pay US-like prices for that service. In my experience, the Canadian system has worked very well for me. It's only the wealthy people who complain the most.

[Trajectory]

Subject to approval by the government.

That's your opinion. It's not reality, unless you think I'm lying.

[Frank777]

In the US, my health insurance company decided what procedures I could get or not. Here in Canada, my doctor decides.

The BC Government has cut funding of medical care by about $350 million this year with the result that one hospital region has capped it's MRI usage at 15,000 this year. Think about that. The MRI can only be used 15,000 times. They already know how much it will be used, so if you happen to be in an emergency situation and number 15,001 comes up, well tough luck. The decisions are not being made based on medical necessity but on financial considerations, and no you can't pay [for the MRI] yourself as that would be unfair to the other guy.

------------

Trajectory, I'm not sure you fully grasp how Canadian medicare works.

Look, I don't want to reduce this argument to the idea that it's between a bunch of libertarians fighting off the communists. We all want better health care, and it's objectionable [and unChristian] to leave millions of Americans without any coverage, worried that they may be reduced to bankruptcy if they get sick.

But we all need food to survive, and we don't allow the government to control the food system because we know it wouldn't work. Why would this work in health care?

The truth is that health care, long managed by the government, is woefully behind the times, just like the energy grid and the transit system the same government also manages. To this day, our medical files consist of scribbled-down notes penned by individual doctors and stored in massive filing cabinets.

Contrast this with the reasonably managed postal system, which was a joke in the 70's and 80's, until parallel private systems (like Fedex and UPS) showed up. Today, the postal service is forced to be efficient by competition, while guaranteeing that all citizens have access to basic mail services.

This is how it's done people. Outlawing parallel private systems was a recipe for failure in Canada, and will be the same in the American experience.

The difference is that the U.S. has ten times our population, so that failure will be amazing to watch.

[Trajectory]

Look, I'm not going to start arguing which system works better. I'm simply providing my own insight based on my extensive first-hand experience in BOTH medical systems. I've had several surgeries and procedures here in Canada that were prescribed and approved by my DOCTORS, not a government employee, so, project what you want onto that, but, that's the truth.

If the Canadian system is so bad and broken, why does the entire population still have medical care? Yes it's overstretched right now, just as the American system is, but for different reasons. Personally, based on my experience, the Canadian system does the best to provide the most medical care to the most number of it's citizens. That's not the case for the US system.

Frank, do you really think the government has no control or nothing to do with our food supply? If so, you are mistaken.

[Trajectory]

The truth is that health care, long managed by the government, is woefully behind the times, just like the energy grid and the transit system the same government also manages. To this day, our medical files consist of scribbled-down notes penned by individual doctors and stored in massive filing cabinets.

What are you talking about? That is simply not true! Sounds like you're just repeating the stuff you hear the Republicans saying about the medical system here. Every doctor I've been to enters their medical information into a computer and has access to my medical history. Just like in the US! Have you ever actually lived in the US and used the medical system there?

[FormerLurker]

What it comes down to for me is who is currently making the decisions about your own health: you and your doctor, or a pencil pusher in an insurance or HMO office who has never seen or met you and is only concerned with budgets and quotas?

Fixed That For You.

[jazzguru]

Fixed That For You.

No, you didn't.

[FormerLurker]

No, you didn't.

Really?

So your argument is that health care decisions are NOT being made currently by insurance and HMO pencil pushers?

I guess you've never been denied coverage for a procedure, or had something declared to be a pre-existing condition that's not covered?

You must either be very healthy, or have really expensive insurance if that's the case!

[Frank777]

I've had several surgeries and procedures here in Canada that were prescribed and approved by my DOCTORS, not a government employee, so, project what you want onto that, but, that's the truth.

In Canada, the doctor is a government employee. But the bigger issue is that everyone, left and right, agrees that health services are being rationed. That your procedures were not subject to long waits is good news, but everyone's mileage varies.

If the Canadian system is so bad and broken, why does the entire population still have medical care? Yes it's overstretched right now, just as the American system is, but for different reasons. Personally, based on my experience, the Canadian system does the best to provide the most medical care to the most number of it's citizens. That's not the case for the US system.

Everyone has (sometimes theoretical) access to medical care because the entire country is enrolled in a government-run single payer system. That, by definition, means that everyone is covered. However (as you mention) the system is overstretched and far short of capacity. Covering everyone in a country leads to the need for compromises.

I am aware that not everyone in the US is covered. That is the reason this debate exists.


Frank, do you really think the government has no control or nothing to do with our food supply? If so, you are mistaken.

I did not say the government has "no control" or has "nothing to do with" our food supply.
But the government does not control the means of production. The government does not pay farmers, set prices or stock grocery shelves. The government has an oversight role, which is the best role for it.

What are you talking about? That is simply not true! Sounds like you're just repeating the stuff you hear the Republicans saying about the medical system here. Every doctor I've been to enters their medical information into a computer and has access to my medical history. Just like in the US! Have you ever actually lived in the US and used the medical system there?

I live in Canada. I use the Canadian system and, every time I visit the doctor, my hard copy file is pulled out and notes made into it. Now this may change when Apple introduces its tablet, but it's how things work for now where I am.

I presume this to be the case in a large part of the U.S. Since Fast Company's recent fascinating look at the future of Health Care (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/the-doctor-of-the-future.html) talks about electronic health records (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/19-billion-for-what.html) as being something that major US companies (IBM, Microsoft and others) are still working on (and won't be implemented until 2014.)

You may be confusing comprehensive electronic health records with the medicare patient databases, which simply reports on patients and procedures that are mainly for doctors' billing purposes.

[jazzguru]

Really?

So your argument is that health care decisions are NOT being made currently by insurance and HMO pencil pushers?

I guess you've never been denied coverage for a procedure, or had something declared to be a pre-existing condition that's not covered?

You must either be very healthy, or have really expensive insurance if that's the case!

My argument is that you didn't fix my statement.

[groverat]

What it comes down to for me is who should be making the decisions about your own health: you and your doctor, or a pencil pusher in a government office who has never seen or met you and is only concerned with budgets and quotas?

In what fantasy world does the "you and your doctor" option exist?

[FloorJack]

In what fantasy world does the "you and your doctor" option exist?

Can't you think of any? They are rather remedial if you put your mind to it.

Try to make some effort in this thread.

[screener]

In Canada, the doctor is a government employee.
You live in Canada and believe that?
Take your pick,
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Canadian+Doctors+Government+Employees%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
But the government does not control the means of production. The government does not pay farmers
Really?
Ever hear of the Milk Marketing Boards?
Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Milk+Marketing+Board+Canada&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

Government doesn't pay farmers?
Take your pick.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&q=Paid+Not+To+Plant&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g10

[groverat]

Utopia?

Being a consumer of private insurance, I'm well aware of how much influence private insurance has in not only what kinds of procedures, tests, and medications I can get from my doctor, but even over who my doctor is. (Starting with a new dentist today, incidentally, because of insurance.)

[Trajectory]

I did not say the government has "no control" or has "nothing to do with" our food supply. But the government does not control the means of production. The government does not pay farmers, set prices or stock grocery shelves. The government has an oversight role, which is the best role for it.

In the US, farmers are paid by the US government to NOT grow certain crops. It's a really screwed-up situation that has pushed out small, family farms in favor of large, corporate-run food mills.

I live in Canada. I use the Canadian system and, every time I visit the doctor, my hard copy file is pulled out and notes made into it. Now this may change when Apple introduces its tablet, but it's how things work for now where I am.

I presume this to be the case in a large part of the U.S. Since Fast Company's recent fascinating look at the future of Health Care (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/the-doctor-of-the-future.html) talks about electronic health records (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/19-billion-for-what.html) as being something that major US companies (IBM, Microsoft and others) are still working on (and won't be implemented until 2014.)

You may be confusing comprehensive electronic health records with the medicare patient databases, which simply reports on patients and procedures that are mainly for doctors' billing purposes.

Yes, in NYC my doctors did the same: hand-written records and files. When my records were transferred to Canada, they essentially just photocopied everything and sent a huge package of paper to me. My doctor here in Canada had all that paper digitized into their computer system so that all of my care-givers have access if they need it (with my permission, of course).

I'm not sure what kind of computer system that is, but, it appears to be more advanced than what my doctors in NYC were using.

I think if many middle-class Canadians spent a year in the US health insurance system, they'd feel a lot better about their own healthcare system. Neither are perfect, but, so far I've been extremely impressed with how easy and efficient healthcare is handled here in Canada, and how it doesn't discriminate based on income or wealth. So far, no government employee has denied me any service prescribed by my doctors, even with a pre-existing condition, and I haven't had to pay out anything more than my small monthly charge which is less than my iPhone bill! And the quality of care from doctors has, so far, been absolutely superb.

It's also becoming clear that healthcare plays a significant role in national security. Us Americans seem oblivious to this.

The other thing I've noticed is that prescription drugs are WAY cheaper here. So, the whole system is meant to be more accessible and not too much a financial burden for everyone. That can't be said for the current system in the US.

[jazzguru]

I think it's important to share personal experiences. Thank goodness this guy did.

A Short Course in Brain Surgery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U)

[Trajectory]

I think it's important to share personal experiences. Thank goodness this guy did.

A Short Course in Brain Surgery (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_Rf42zNl9U)

Propaganda.

How many people with brain tumors in the US are without any healthcare at all?

Every system has flaws. If you think the US system is a lot better, you need to visit a few hospitals and talk to a few doctors and nurses working in the field. They have a very different story than you're hearing from politicians being lobbied by the health insurance industry.

[jazzguru]

Propaganda.

How many people with brain tumors in the US are without any healthcare at all?

Every system has flaws. If you think the US system is a lot better, you need to visit a few hospitals and talk to a few doctors and nurses working in the field. They have a very different story than you're hearing from politicians being lobbied by the health insurance industry.

So a personal account is "propaganda"? What was the ObamaCare® ABC informercial?

How many other people in Canada with brain tumors aren't getting the care they need?

I suppose you've visited a few hospitals and talked to a few doctors and nurses working in the field? What kinds of things did they all tell you?

And hey, I thought Obama was going to get rid of lobbyists in Washington. Oops. Another promise he broke.

Here are some other personal experiences with universal healthcare:

Two Women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os)

[FormerLurker]

My argument is that you didn't fix my statement.
Oh, OK - you want to be nitpicky about my presentation.

Let's try again, then....

What part of my restatement of your statement do you find to be incorrect?

[jazzguru]

Oh, OK - you want to be nitpicky about my presentation.

Let's try again, then....

What part of my restatement of your statement do you find to be incorrect?

I wrote exactly what I intended to say. Therefore, my statement did not need to be fixed.

[Trajectory]

I suppose you've visited a few hospitals and talked to a few doctors and nurses working in the field? What kinds of things did they all tell you?

I have three family members that work in the medial industry, one here in Canada. My sister is a nurse in L.A. My mom works in the billing office at a large hospital. My newphew-in-law is a doctor in a private practice. So yes, I have talked to doctors and nurses working in the field, and they essentially believe the US system is badly broken, is wasteful and goes out of its way to deny medical care to people who desperately need it and sometimes die because of those decisions.

And hey, I thought Obama was going to get rid of lobbyists in Washington. Oops. Another promise he broke.

I agree with you on that one.

Here are some other personal experiences with universal healthcare:

Two Women (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXZaTXDu3Os)

And here's one about the US health insurance industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlDAUKSh9CQ

[FormerLurker]

I wrote exactly what I intended to say. Therefore, my statement did not need to be fixed.

You're still arguing about the presentation, rather than the content, of my restatement of your statement.

I'm going to try one more time before concluding that you have no interest in discussing the actual content of either your or my statement....

Do you agree or disagree that health care decisions are being made currently by insurance and HMO pencil pushers?

[jazzguru]

You're still arguing about the presentation, rather than the content, of my restatement of your statement.

I'm going to try one more time before concluding that you have no interest in actually discussing the actual content of either your or my statement....

Do you agree or disagree that health care decisions are being made currently by insurance and HMO pencil pushers?

Why didn't you just ask me that in the first place?

Yes, some health care decisions are currently being made by insurance/HMO pencil pushers. Some health care decisions are currently being made by federal and state government pencil pushers, too.

Each health insurance company is different, though.

Look, if you're trying to get me to say something idiotic like "the U.S. healthcare system is perfect just how it is", it's not gonna happen, because I don't believe that.

HOWEVER, just as in the case of the Bush/Obama stimulus packages, I don't believe that just because a proposed action is different than the status quo means it is the BEST solution or that it is a solution at all.

So, naturally your next question is: "well if you don't think ObamaCare is the right solution, what do you propose instead?"

Well, I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't really know. But I do believe the solution lies in the free market and not socialist government. The current system needs to be adjusted, not destroyed.

A good start would be to get insurance company lobbyists - ALL lobbyists for that matter - the heck out of Washington.

And maybe enacting some policies that actually do encourage more competition to bring prices down and quality up?

[FormerLurker]

Why didn't you just ask me that in the first place?

That's what I WAS asking in the first place (and stated clearly in my second post which you quoted). You just chose to ignore my point and argue against my method of making it.

Fortunately, we've managed to move beyond that - better late than never!
;)

Yes, some health care decisions are currently being made by insurance/HMO pencil pushers. Some health care decisions are currently being made by federal and state government pencil pushers, too.

Each health insurance company is different, though.

Yes, there are different standards of coverage and exclusions and decision-making among different companies (and even among different plans in the same company).

I'm not all that sure that's a good thing, though. It seems to me that uniform standards would be better for the consumer of healthcare, and would lead to a drastic decrease in the number of medical bankruptcies among patients who are insured.

Look, if you're trying to get me to say something idiotic like "the U.S. healthcare system is perfect just how it is", it's not gonna happen, because I don't believe that.

HOWEVER, just as in the case of the Bush/Obama stimulus packages, I don't believe that just because a proposed action is different than the status quo means it is the BEST solution or that it is a solution at all.

So, naturally your next question is: "well if you don't think ObamaCare is the right solution, what do you propose instead?"

Well, I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't really know. But I do believe the solution lies in the free market and not socialist government. The current system needs to be adjusted, not destroyed.

And I would argue that the current proposal represents an adjustment, rather than a destruction. We could disagree about how big an adjustment, but to call it a "destruction" is not an honest argument.

A good start would be to get insurance company lobbyists - ALL lobbyists for that matter - the heck out of Washington.

Hear, hear!

In a wider sense, I would argue that we don't really have a "free market" system of... well, anything... as long as lobbyists have such a large role in affecting the market.

And maybe enacting some policies that actually do encourage more competition to bring prices down and quality up?

And maybe eliminating the huge cost of insurance administrative overhead would bring prices down and quality up.

[Tauron]

Really.
Does the GOP have a better solution to solving the health care problem? If they do, what is it? and will their solution really work?

Will the DEMS solution work? Does anyone really know what will work and what won't?

Is doing nothing the answer?

How much easier would finding a solution be if GREED were not part of the equation?

The GOP has NO plan.

Their whole 'strategy', believe it or not, it to oppose pretty much everything proposed by dems so latter they can twist the facts to "conclude" that it didn't work and therefore they are a better choice for the country and "I told you so". Just wait and you will see. It won't matter if the economy is actually growing in a year they will still say it is growing slow because of the dems. It doesn't matter if everybody is insured and the cost wasn't that great, they will still say it is ruining the country and turning us all into communists.

Sounds ridiculous but so is pretty much everything they have done in the last 10 years.

[jazzguru]

The GOP has NO plan.

Their whole 'strategy', believe it or not, it to oppose pretty much everything proposed by dems so latter they can twist the facts to "conclude" that it didn't work and therefore they are a better choice for the country and "I told you so". Just wait and you will see. It won't matter if the economy is actually growing in a year they will still say it is growing slow because of the dems. It doesn't matter if everybody is insured and the cost wasn't that great, they will still say it is ruining the country and turning us all into communists.

Sounds ridiculous but so is pretty much everything they have done in the last 10 years.

Funny, when the GOP was in power, they were saying the same things about the Dems.

2 branches of the same party putting on a show to make it look like they oppose one another. They get their supporters on both sides all riled up and bickering and arguing, keeping them distracted from what's really going on. Meanwhile, they slowly push their globalist, big government agenda forward.

[Trajectory]

2 branches of the same party putting on a show to make it look like they oppose one another. They get their supporters on both sides all riled up and bickering and arguing, keeping them distracted from what's really going on. Meanwhile, they slowly push their globalist, big government agenda forward.

When you say "2 branches of the same party," are you talking about Repubs and Dems or just Dems? Because to me, there's really not much difference between the Repubs and Dems anymore, the "opposition" is pure theater. Are you falling for it?

I don't know why there's so much resistance to a government-based healthcare program. What do you think Medicaid has been all these years? Granted, Bush fucked it up during his term, but, it was a pretty well-run program for many years under both Repubs and Dems.

Politicians, Corporations, Big Pharma and News Media are all on the side of health insurance companies, not the average citizen. Their healthcare is stellar because they are wealthy or it's paid by our tax dollars, so, they don't give a shit about the average Joe or whether or not he and his family have healthcare. They are feeding us all a bunch of bullshit in hopes we'll leave it in the mess it's already in, and millions of kids and elderly go without healthcare. Why would anyone want that? Unless you happen to fall into one of those privileged groups.

If something isn't done to fix it soon, the next pandemic to hit will be devastating in the US and countries without adequate national healthcare for citizens. If you can't at least see that healthcare should be part of our National Security, then you're just whistling past the graveyard.

Or maybe you can understand this in your terms: Pro-Life and Terrorism. Are you okay with people and babies dying because they don't have access to healthcare? Because it's happening right now, just down the street. Do you realize terrorists can use biological weapons to spread disease and killer viruses? National healthcare is needed to combat both of those things you hold so dear.

[involuntary_serf]

Politicians, Corporations, Big Pharma and News Media are all on the side of health insurance companies, not the average citizen. Their healthcare is stellar because they are wealthy or it's paid by our tax dollars, so, they don't give a shit about the average Joe or whether or not he and his family have healthcare.

And so it stands to reason that we should just hand over the health care marketplace to them. :err:

[involuntary_serf]

Yes, there are different standards of coverage and exclusions and decision-making among different companies (and even among different plans in the same company).

I'm not all that sure that's a good thing, though. It seems to me that uniform standards would be better for the consumer of healthcare, and would lead to a drastic decrease in the number of medical bankruptcies among patients who are insured.

Why do you assume that "uniform standards would be better for the consumer of healthcare"? Why do you assume these uniform standards "would lead to a drastic decrease in the number of medical bankruptcies among patients who are insured"?


but to call it a "destruction" is not an honest argument.

Why?


In a wider sense, I would argue that we don't really have a "free market" system of... well, anything... as long as lobbyists have such a large role in affecting the market.

As long as government has (and continues to take more) power there will be vultures roving around to control, "influence" and direct that power to their interests. The problem isn't the lobbyists, the problem is the center of power around which they gravitate and orbit.


[QUOTE=FormerLurker;1450016And maybe eliminating the huge cost of insurance administrative overhead would bring prices down and quality up.[/QUOTE]

Don't you think that profit seeking companies have a huge incentive to lower their administrative costs? As far as I can tell profit-seeking companies have a much greater incentive (increased profit) to lower administrative costs than do government bureaucracies.

[FormerLurker]

Why do you assume that "uniform standards would be better for the consumer of healthcare"? Why do you assume these uniform standards "would lead to a drastic decrease in the number of medical bankruptcies among patients who are insured"?
Why would you assume the opposite?



Why?

Because the destruction of the healthcare system would lead to... NO healthcare system, and no healthcare for anyone.

It's clear to everyone but the most (purposefully) obtuse that's not what anyone is proposing.


As long as government has (and continues to take more) power there will be vultures roving around to control, "influence" and direct that power to their interests. The problem isn't the lobbyists, the problem is the center of power around which they gravitate and orbit.

So your solution to the problem of the influence of lobbyists is, what... zero government regulation of anything?


Don't you think that profit seeking companies have a huge incentive to lower their administrative costs? As far as I can tell profit-seeking companies have a much greater incentive (increased profit) to lower administrative costs than do government bureaucracies.

If they have "a huge incentive to lower their administrative costs", then what has prevented them from doing so up till now? Instead of lowering costs, they just keep growing their own bureaucracies, and increasing the premiums that they charge their customers, while decreasing the quality of coverage they offer them.

[Northgate]

What it comes down to for me is who should be making the decisions about your own health: you and your doctor, or a pencil pusher in a government office who has never seen or met you and is only concerned with budgets and quotas?

But it isn't between you and your doctor right now, is it? It's between you and your insurer. That's a big problem. If you can even get the insurance at all or are not conveniently dropped when you actually do get sick.

I still don't know why Republicans go out of their way to defend the status quo.

[FloorJack]

You what I never hear in any of this debate is what people want.

What do patients and the public want for people who are sick. What qualities of a well run health care system do people want?

Rather people go tilting at windmills of their own choosing. Insurance, drug companies, government. doctors, hospitals, tort ... It's all just silly regurgitated politics and no one is thinking of a new system that gets people what they want.


Here's what I want ...


I want a system that covers everyone.

I want a system that rewards the individual for good health.

I want a system that respects the individual.

I want a system that supports disclosure and learning from mistakes and best practice.

I want a system where patients and doctors are in control of treatment options.

I want a system encourages the best people to enter the medical profession.

I want a system that supports ground breaking research in medical science.

I want a system that funds and supports evidence based medicine.


Notice I want all of this without picking out a bad guy or staking a flag in one political system or another.

Paying and providing for medical care is not rocket science. You can have public or private payors. You can have public or private provided care. It's four squares put together. Given all the wants above where to I plant my flag?

When put in that light you can see that Obama's "public option" really only provides for a public method to pay for private provided care, it all of sudden doesn't seem so Hopey-Changey. It's kind of More of the Samey. But that Obama. Rhetoric over results.

[involuntary_serf]

Why would you assume the opposite?

Who said I do?


Because the destruction of the healthcare system would lead to... NO healthcare system, and no healthcare for anyone.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other here. I was asking you why "but to call it a "destruction" is not an honest argument"? And by "call it a destruction" I assume that by "call it a "destruction"" you are referring to those who believe that the current proposals will lead to destruction of the system. So my question is basically, why do you think that those who argue that the current proposals will lead to destruction are not making an honest argument?


It's clear to everyone but the most (purposefully) obtuse that's not what anyone is proposing.

Of course that's not what anyone is actually proposing. But that doesn't mean that what they're proposing won't actually lead to destruction. Which, I believe is highly probable. No one has claimed that anyone is proposing destroying the system. That's a straw man.


So your solution to the problem of the influence of lobbyists is, what... zero government regulation of anything?

Well I wasn't proposing anything at this point, I was merely pointing out the root cause. Where there is an epicenter of power, it will be surrounded by people who want to control and use that power for their own means. Nothing magical about this. Just human nature. My proposal? Well it might not be necessary to go to "zero government regulation of anything" but significantly reducing and limiting the size, scope and power of government might be a step in the right direction on that front.


If they have "a huge incentive to lower their administrative costs", then what has prevented them from doing so up till now? Instead of lowering costs, they just keep growing their own bureaucracies, and increasing the premiums that they charge their customers, while decreasing the quality of coverage they offer them.

First, I'll grant you the assumption that a) they haven't been trying to reduce their administrative overhead, and, b) they just keep growing their own bureaucracies, and increasing the premiums that they charge their customers, while decreasing the quality of coverage they offer them. Assuming both of these are in fact true, why are they true? Good question. I would argue it is because they are not subject to real and vigorous competition for customers that would force them to become more efficient and provide better services at better prices. Something is limiting competition. Something is increasing their administrative burdens. I'd take a wild guess and say it is government regulation and protection (from excessive competition).

In industries where there is vigorous competition you typically see companies always trying to reduce their administrative overhead and you don't see a lot of them "growing their own bureaucracies, and increasing the premiums that they charge their customers, while decreasing the quality of coverage they offer them".

[Taskiss]

Here's what I want ...
About health care:

I want a new drug
One that wont spill
One that dont cost too much
Or come in a pill
...
I want a new drug
One that does what it should
One that wont make me feel too bad
One that wont make me feel too good

I want a new drug
One with no doubt
One that wont make me talk too much
Or make my face break out

If Obama can do that, I'll vote for him next election. ;)

[jazzguru]

But it isn't between you and your doctor right now, is it? It's between you and your insurer. That's a big problem. If you can even get the insurance at all or are not conveniently dropped when you actually do get sick.

I still don't know why Republicans go out of their way to defend the status quo.

If you took the time to read more of my posts, you'd understand that I am not a Republican, and that I do not defend the status quo.

Try to talk with me rather than at me.

What other options are there under a single-payer system if your treatment is postponed indefinitely or denied? Can you switch to another provider? Can you pay for it out of your own pocket? Can a charitable organization cover the cost for you? Can family members help out with the cost?

[FloorJack]

...

I still don't know why Republicans go out of their way to defend the status quo.

Of course they don't but that doesn't mean we should to the wrong thing to solve the problem. Obama's "public option" just adds another insurance company. If fact based on what medicare/medicade pay for now I wouldn't expect the "public option" to pay for all care. So that problem is not solved. It's a fact that anything the government runs will cost more and perform worse than the private sector. So that problem is not solved.

Expect to see Obama's health care plan on Fail Blog soon.

[O-Mac]

Attack Bush.
Attack Obama.

It seems like that's all some people want to do.
What's harder to do, eat ONE lays potato chip or not bash one president or another?

Looks like everyone has an opinion for what's gonna work and what's not gonna work.

[Northgate]

The problem is they want to use the Health Care Reform issue as a way to score cheap political points against Obama. And that's it.

They're not interested in reform. They just aren't.

All they want to do is filibuster and scare, filibuster and scare. Pretend they're bringing up "real concerns" and all the usual bullshit. Pretend it's too expensive. Blah blah blah.

One thing is for certain. Health care is will never be reformed as long as there's a chance for the right to use it as a weapon against Obama.

This has nothing to do with you, the American citizen. It has everything to do with protecting campaign contributions from Insurance and big pharma and television campaign ads in 2012.

[Northgate]

If you took the time to read more of my posts, you'd understand that I am not a Republican, and that I do not defend the status quo.

Try to talk with me rather than at me.

What other options are there under a single-payer system if your treatment is postponed indefinitely or denied? Can you switch to another provider? Can you pay for it out of your own pocket? Can a charitable organization cover the cost for you? Can family members help out with the cost?

Ok. Let me rephrase that.

Conservatives have no intention on passing real health care reform. If they did then they'd propose real solutions. All we get is scare tactics and fiscal responsibility. Nothing else.

[FloorJack]

Ok. Let me rephrase that.

Conservatives have no intention on passing real health care reform. If they did then they'd propose real solutions. All we get is scare tactics and fiscal responsibility. Nothing else.

Would you also say that Obama has no intention of passing real health care reform? All he's doing is adding a tax payor funded "public option". Not very changey to go with the hopey.

[NOFEER]

there has not been a "debate" on this,
government won't tell the truth, if so great how come the legislation exempts members of congress how many in congress will drop what they have for what they want to force on us
try heritage.org they have alternatives, this administration needs to stop ramming this down our throats and let us see several alternative, perhaps even give a chance to "vote" on it
a debate requires that you look at several sides in an honest way

one thing no one has said, how to provide incentives for people NOT to use the emergency room for things that can be taken care of at a clinic
until we can say "not now, we have an appt with one of our clinics or your private doctor tomorrow" without being sued we can't move forward

[FloorJack]

How to incentive GPs to take care of simple things that they refer out for now?

[Northgate]

Would you also say that Obama has no intention of passing real health care reform? All he's doing is adding a tax payor funded "public option". Not very changey to go with the hopey.

Great! I'd love nothing more than a "public option". If the government is willing to spend my tax dollars killing Iraqi's in the vain of keeping me safe then I'm willing to let the government spend my tax dollars on keeping me healthy.

And you're entitled to your opinion even if it is oversimplified and political in nature. But that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of middle-class Americans who do not have health insurance and can't get health insurance.

The conservative solution is = fuck 'em, too expensive. We love big scam insurance companies making our health decisions for us.

So fuck 'em, yeah? As long you guys get your campaign slogans for mid-terms I guess it's worth it.

We can afford to spend a trillion in Iraq. We can afford to spend a trillion in on the banks. But we can't spend a trillion on health care. Why? We've got too many lazy fat lazy people.

[FloorJack]

Great! I'd love nothing more than a "public option". If the government is willing to spend my tax dollars killing Iraqi's in the vain of keeping me safe then I'm willing to let the government spend my tax dollars on keeping me healthy.

But much like military spending everything the government runs is for shit. Is there any one program the government runs well? Other than the IRS? But because the left can't think of anything new we have the same old wasteful "solutions". Hope! Change! McSame!

And you're entitled to your opinion even if it is oversimplified and political in nature. But that doesn't change the fact that there are millions of middle-class Americans who do not have health insurance and can't get health insurance.

How are my opinions "oversimplified and political in nature" when I've posted about the qualities I'd like in a well run health care system leaving politics out of it? While the left is busy picking out bad guys with no real thought or analysis and ignorantly proclaiming the right has "no solution". Thoughtless ignorance. That's politics.

The conservative solution is = fuck 'em, too expensive. We love big scam insurance companies making our health decisions for us.

So fuck 'em, yeah? As long you guys get your campaign slogans for mid-terms I guess it's worth it.

More ignorance. You chose the big scam of big government making the decisions (and you know they will (they already are)) while you demonize free market. Talk about oversimplified and political.

We can afford to spend a trillion in Iraq. We can afford to spend a trillion in on the banks. But we can't spend a trillion on health care. Why? We've got too many lazy fat lazy people.

WOW! You left out the "stimulus" spending. How oversimplified and political of you. Some how or another everything gets paid for. We're just arguing about the best way. Obama's method is
"Fuck it, have wasteful bureaucratic government do it paid for by taxing politically unpopular citizens". What a fucking brain trust that guy is! But because it came from Teh One it can be the only solution for the left. How intelligent.

[jimmac]

But much like military spending everything the government runs is for shit. Is there any one program the government runs well? Other than the IRS? But because the left can't think of anything new we have the same old wasteful "solutions". Hope! Change! McSame!



How are my opinions "oversimplified and political in nature" when I've posted about the qualities I'd like in a well run health care system leaving politics out of it? While the left is busy picking out bad guys with no real thought or analysis and ignorantly proclaiming the right has "no solution". Thoughtless ignorance. That's politics.



More ignorance. You chose the big scam of big government making the decisions (and you know they will (they already are)) while you demonize free market. Talk about oversimplified and political.



WOW! You left out the "stimulus" spending. How oversimplified and political of you. Some how or another everything gets paid for. We're just arguing about the best way. Obama's method is
"Fuck it, have wasteful bureaucratic government do it paid for by taxing politically unpopular citizens". What a fucking brain trust that guy is! But because it came from Teh One it can be the only solution for the left. How intelligent.




WOW! You left out the "stimulus" spending. How oversimplified and political of you. Some how or another everything gets paid for. We're just arguing about the best way. Obama's method is
"Fuck it, have wasteful bureaucratic government do it paid for by taxing politically unpopular citizens". What a fucking brain trust that guy is! But because it came from Teh One it can be the only solution for the left. How intelligent.
[/QUOTE]

Well then you must feel the same way about Mr. Bush! I mean when the economy shows any signs of something good the republicans credit that fast action by Mr. Bush last year!:lol:

taxing politically unpopular citizens

Oh by the way the group you're talking about is more than just politically unpopular!;)

Try widely unpopular.

You chose the big scam of big government making the decisions (and you know they will (they already are))

This is a unproven midel and just your personal opinion not fact.


and you know they will (they already are:rolleyes::no:

[FloorJack]

This is a unproven midel and just your personal opinion not fact.


:rolleyes::no:

There are some number of treatments that medicare will not pay for. Not to mention many doctors that don't accept it as payment. That's limited care right now. Not opinion. Fact.

[Trajectory]

Isn't it ironic that once a Democrat becomes President, the entire government suddenly becomes "bloated, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient."

Where were you for the past 8 years when Bush was racking up the biggest deficit in history and expanding the government's size and power to historic levels?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

[involuntary_serf]

Isn't it ironic that once a Democrat becomes President, the entire government suddenly becomes "bloated, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient."

Well I cannot speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned it hasn't happened "all of the sudden" and Bush is guilty in many ways as well. But what is equally ironic is the things that were evil, bad and disastrous when Bush was doing them are all of the sudden just fine now that Obama is doing them. :rolleyes:


Where were you for the past 8 years when Bush was racking up the biggest deficit in history and expanding the government's size and power to historic levels?

You mean until Obama's deficit.


The hypocrisy is astounding.

Indeed it is.

[FloorJack]

Isn't it ironic that once a Democrat becomes President, the entire government suddenly becomes "bloated, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient."

Where were you for the past 8 years when Bush was racking up the biggest deficit in history and expanding the government's size and power to historic levels?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Yea a lot of use weren't happy about it. You must have forgotten the debate around TSA and homeland security. Of course the democrats wouldn't do without it because it buys more union votes with tax payor money.

[Trajectory]

Democrats generally have no problem criticizing their leaders. Obama has been criticized by lots of his supporters already. Republicans call it "anti-American" if it's a Republican president, the Constitution calls it Democracy.

Republicans on the other hand tend to deify their leaders and agree with anything coming from the mouths of self-professed Republicans. Rarely do you see public disapproval of their bad ideas coming from their base.

But this is what the politicians want. They want us all fighting over issues that have no bearing on most people's lives like gay marriage while they pillage the US Treasury and take away more and more of our civil rights. The Republicans started the greatest daylight robbery in history, and now Obama and a good portion of Democrats are allowing it to continue unabated. Of course, NOW Republicans are complaining, but, they were awfully quiet when Bush was handing out billions to Wall Street and Halliburton.

[Frank777]

Isn't it ironic that once a Democrat becomes President, the entire government suddenly becomes "bloated, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient."

Where were you for the past 8 years when Bush was racking up the biggest deficit in history and expanding the government's size and power to historic levels?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

We were right here, and there were no shortage of conservatives on this board who complained that Bush was spending money like a drunken Democrat.

Unfortunately, the only other option was the actual drunken Democrats, who have taken wasteful "stimulus" spending to historic heights in less than a year of power.

It isn't really either party. It's the innate selfishness of an entire generation of North Americans, who believe they are so special that it is in their children's interests that they be protected from economic hardship (at the expense of those children.)

When the coming generation gets their payback, it won't be pretty.

[Northgate]

Yea a lot of use weren't happy about it.

But you kept your mouth shut about it, didn't you?

[Northgate]

We were right here, and there were no shortage of conservatives on this board who complained that Bush was spending money like a drunken Democrat.

Really? Who? When? Which thread? Because it certainly didn't come from the conservative posters between 2002-2008 (the years I've been around here). One or two anecdotal posts?

[FloorJack]

But you kept your mouth shut about it, didn't you?

Yes yes I did. You found me out. Now I'm just bitter bitter bitter.

[jimmac]

We were right here, and there were no shortage of conservatives on this board who complained that Bush was spending money like a drunken Democrat.

Unfortunately, the only other option was the actual drunken Democrats, who have taken wasteful "stimulus" spending to historic heights in less than a year of power.

It isn't really either party. It's the innate selfishness of an entire generation of North Americans, who believe they are so special that it is in their children's interests that they be protected from economic hardship (at the expense of those children.)

When the coming generation gets their payback, it won't be pretty.

We were right here, and there were no shortage of conservatives on this board who complained that Bush was spending money like a drunken Democrat.


:lol:


Uh huh.

You mean there was no shortage of liberals on this board that were asking " How are our children going to pay for this? "

Sound familure?

[Taskiss]

There's a certain amount of deficit spending that I will privately grumble about, and past that point I speak out. I have reached that point, and now I believe it's time to stop spending.

If folks want health care, then they need to figure out how to pay for it without raising taxes. That's not an invitation to creative bookeeping, either.

[Northgate]

If folks want health care, then they need to figure out how to pay for it without raising taxes. That's not an invitation to creative bookeeping, either.

So in other words, "Fuck health care."

[trumptman]

Really? Who? When? Which thread? Because it certainly didn't come from the conservative posters between 2002-2008 (the years I've been around here). One or two anecdotal posts?

Well we all know that the board search function is toast. That said, here is one from me in 2003. (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showpost.php?p=408493&postcount=3) I also wish I could find it but I distinctly remember starting a thread about Bush not being very conservative, perhaps I used the phrase Democrat-lite or or something of that nature and had everyone in here declaring me delusional because we all know Bush is the most conservative conservative EVAR!11111 by their reasoning. I remember going on and on about his spending in that post too.

Ok. Let me rephrase that.

Conservatives have no intention on passing real health care reform. If they did then they'd propose real solutions. All we get is scare tactics and fiscal responsibility. Nothing else.

Playing the INTENTION game is not very fun. Perhaps you would like to respond to words instead of phantoms of my mind.

Isn't it ironic that once a Democrat becomes President, the entire government suddenly becomes "bloated, wasteful, expensive, and inefficient."

Where were you for the past 8 years when Bush was racking up the biggest deficit in history and expanding the government's size and power to historic levels?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Again, I'm sure with a proper search function we could go back to 2006 and find plenty of posts much like mine which said, that we were profoundly unhappy with what Republican were doing but that we had no choice because even while running on PayGO we knew they would open the floodgates on spending.

So in other words, "Fuck health care."

If I wanted to fuck health care, I'd give it to the government.

[Frank777]

You mean there was no shortage of liberals on this board that were asking " How are our children going to pay for this? "

Sound familure?

First of all, Mac OS X has a wonderful spell checker. :lol:

Second, if you were concerned in the past about Bush's spending (as you claim above), why aren't you asking the same question about Obama's spending, which is several orders of magnitude higher?

[Northgate]

If I wanted to fuck health care, I'd give it to the government.

Because the insurance companies have all our best interests at heart. :mad:

[jazzguru]

Because the insurance companies have all our best interests at heart. :mad:

You think the government has all our best interests at heart? You better be 100% sure about that, because once they have a forced monopoly on healthcare, there's no turning back.

[Taskiss]

So in other words, "Fuck health care."Perhaps. One could say "fuck fiscal responsibility", but in the end, someone has to pick up the bill, and from what I heard on the news tonight, the bill for the administrations plans so far is $80,000.00 for every man, woman and child in the US.

There needs to be an end to the spending. It needed to happen a long time ago, but that's water over the damn - it's gotta stop now.

[Frank777]

Because the insurance companies have all our best interests at heart. :mad:

The insurance companies have only their own interest at heart.
But at least their actions are restrained within a competitive marketplace.

With the government, there is no such restraint.

And before you talk about democracy and elections, note that a single election campaign every four years cannot hope to provide adequate oversight on a single department of government that makes life and death decisions on a daily basis.

The government has an important role in the health care system. Primarily, it should be what government does best, which is oversight.

Additional roles include connecting the educational system with health care organizations, funding and maintaining domestic security apparatus (such as the Centres for Disease Control) and working to ensure that an orderly, well run system is maintained and policed.

But Canada's single payer system has problems because of excessive government control and the lack of a competitive insurance system, among other things. While it may be "better" than what the U.S. has now (because of 100% coverage) our system shouldn't simply be aped by America.

The U.S. has 10X our population, is at the forefront of medical R&D for the world and has a people steeped in free market ideals (even lefties like Steve Jobs are far more free market than some of our Conservatives.)

It simply won't work.

[jimmac]

First of all, Mac OS X has a wonderful spell checker. :lol:

Second, if you were concerned in the past about Bush's spending (as you claim above), why aren't you asking the same question about Obama's spending, which is several orders of magnitude higher?

If the best you can do is comment on spelling.................

The spending Obama is doing is in response to the lack of good judgement and leadership Bush showed.

You know that.

[Taskiss]

The spending Obama is doing is in response to the lack of good judgement and leadership Bush showed.If you could explain how that works, perhaps in the context of a private sector business or something, I'd really like to have some real world example of how that works.

Specifically, I'd like you to explain the part where you think excessive spending is the correct response to a lack of good judgment and leadership... I'm thinking "two negatives makes a positive" doesn't actually have any relevance here though, so please be prepared to cite successful references.

[jazzguru]

How is excessive spending the remedy for excessive spending?

[jazzguru]

For those of you claiming conservatives have offered no alternatives to ObamaCare®:

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/

[Trajectory]

For those of you claiming conservatives have offered no alternatives to ObamaCare®:

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/

If by "alternatives" you mean bitching about everything Obama does, yes, there's lots on that site.

Heritage Foundation is a partisan "think tank" which has no credibility. Their only goal is to oppose anything they deem progressive and forward-thinking.

[jazzguru]

If by "alternatives" you mean bitching about everything Obama does, yes, there's lots on that site.

Heritage Foundation is a partisan "think tank" which has no credibility. Their only goal is to oppose anything they deem progressive and forward-thinking.

It helps to actually look through the documents on the website and read them.

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/in-the-news/feulners-open-letter-to-obama-on-health-care/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2197es.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2448.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/sr0027.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2128.cfm

Heritage has been offering alternative solutions since long before Obama became president.

[FloorJack]

It helps to actually look through the documents on the website and read them.

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/in-the-news/feulners-open-letter-to-obama-on-health-care/

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2197es.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm2448.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/sr0027.cfm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2128.cfm

Heritage has been offering alternative solutions since long before Obama became president.

All the neo-libs here have forgotten last year. McCain had a plan that disentangled health insurance from employers. That would help in part solve the problem of "lose your job lose your insurance". And also give individuals an ability to shop around for different plans.


Heres are some other ideas that may work.

How to Make Health-Care Reform Bipartisan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300482236378974.html)

A Health-Insurance Solution (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119742880091722751.html)

Wyden's Third Way (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545885464333145.html)

The paleo-libs posting here conclude from their own ignorance that republicans have no ideas and no solutions. Their lack of research and general knowledge is not proof of no ideas or solutions from the right. Smug self assurance leads them to be uncritical of their own ideas and conclude they are correct. That's nothing new.

Teh One offers YAHIC (yet another health insurance company) and were all supposed to genuflect in adulation.:\

[Northgate]

You think the government has all our best interests at heart? You better be 100% sure about that, because once they have a forced monopoly on healthcare, there's no turning back.

Well we know 100% for certain what the record of private insurance is, don't we? :lol:

[Northgate]

Perhaps. One could say "fuck fiscal responsibility", but in the end, someone has to pick up the bill, and from what I heard on the news tonight, the bill for the administrations plans so far is $80,000.00 for every man, woman and child in the US.

There needs to be an end to the spending. It needed to happen a long time ago, but that's water over the damn - it's gotta stop now.

Wow. We were certainly saying "fuck fiscal responsibility" during dominant Republican rule. They got what they wanted. And they didn't give a shit what average Americans thought of it either. I'm sure their lobbyist buddies got what they wanted, though, didn't they?

Now that we want to, you know, spend some of that money on Americans rather than Iraq, Afghanistan, and bailing out all their Wallstreet buddies ... we suddenly can't afford it?

Fuck that.

[jazzguru]

Well we know 100% for certain what the record of private insurance is, don't we? :lol:

There are lots of different insurance companies to choose from, aren't there? You can even choose to not be insured if you want.

[Northgate]

The insurance companies have only their own interest at heart.
But at least their actions are restrained within a competitive marketplace.

Absolutely hilarious!

[Northgate]

How is excessive spending the remedy for excessive spending?

How is spending billions on aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines, and equipment that's unnecessary good fiscal responsibility when Americans are getting sicker and poorer? How is spending a TRILLION dollars on the banks and Wallstreet a good idea.

But SCHIP? Fuck it.

Single-payer? Fuck it.

[Northgate]

There are lots of different insurance companies to choose from, aren't there? You can even choose to not be insured if you want.

Wow. Just wow! :wow::wow::wow:

[jazzguru]

How is spending billions on aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines, and equipment that's unnecessary good fiscal responsibility when Americans are getting sicker and poorer? How is spending a TRILLION dollars on the banks and Wallstreet a good idea.

National defense means nothing to you?

Ask Obama about spending trillions of dollars on banks and wallstreet.

[Northgate]

National defense means nothing to you?

Ask Obama about spending trillions of dollars on banks and wallstreet.

What I'm saying is that we've got the cash for all of the above then we've got the cash for us Americans. I think we all agree that our tax dollars should spent here at home and not policing the world and not making rich fat cats richer.

Pretty simple. Pretty Libertarian actually.

But oh well.

Support the GOP if you want.

[jazzguru]

What I'm saying is that we've got the cash for all of the above then we've got the cash for us Americans. I think we all agree that our tax dollars should spent here at home and not policing the world and not making rich fat cats richer.

Pretty simple. Pretty Libertarian actually.

But oh well.

Support the GOP if you want.

I don't support any political party, at the moment. I'm leaning Constitutionalist, but I have not affiliated with any party.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to stop policing the world. Apparently Obama doesn't agree with me on that. Neither did Bush.

But wanting a strong national defense is totally different than wanting to police the world.