At last the 'REAL DEBATE' begins in earnest!

[Dr.Who]

I applaud both PLC and GenSeneca who both understand the true nature of the enemy even though they take different political views.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I applaud both PLC and GenSeneca who both understand the true nature of the enemy even though they take different political views.

This POV from a poster who told me "make a casserole for a neighbor that has lung cancer"...LMAO

 

[PLC1]

Move to Canada if you want to live in a more socialist society. There is no place for me to go in order to live in a more capitalist society.

Both Canada and the US are capitalist societies. The "more socialist" mantra is simply a talking point. If health care can be streamlined, then by all means, let's do so. If we don't, the costs will soon run us into bankruptcy. How much longer do you think we can continue to allow health care costs to increase faster than the rate of inflation? The current system is not sustainable.

It's not that we "can't" mortgage the wealth, liberty and prosperity of future generations, its that up to now, we've been smart enough to avoid doing so.

No, we absolutely can mortgage the future by continuing to allow health care costs to escalate. Pretty soon, not even the middle class will be able to afford it.

In a word, yes. But a more accurate word would be Unconstitutional.

If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.

So you don't have a source for your numbers?

Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.

BTW, how many Canadians come to the US for healthcare and how many Americans go to Canada for healthcare? If their system is such a great bargain, why do so many come here?

I don't know. Do a lot of Canadians come here? The US doesn't rank very high on the list of medical tourism destinations. In fact, we send a lot of medical tourists abroad from this country. If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?

WHO is lying to push an agenda.... Just as the IPCC lies to push their agenda.

So, WHO can't be trusted, but the the radio pundits who keep telling us we have the best medical care system in the world have no political agenda, and can be taken at face value. Sure, sure, that's believable.

YES!!! Have you ever looked at the historic chart comparing third party spending to out of pocket expenses for healthcare?

So, out of pocket expenses are going down, while insurance costs are going up? What conclusion do you draw from that?

If we created Food Insurance and ran it on the same premise and at the same level as HC insurance, you would notice that the price of food would quickly skyrocket out of control as insurance, rather than the consumer, took over the role of paying food bills. This isn't coincidence, its causality in action.

"Food insurance"? Now, there's a stretch.

We all need to eat, and so must spend a portion of our income on food. No one suddenly gets a hunger pang that will cost tens of thousands of dollars to satisfy. Your analogy could use some work.


So you'd simply prefer government to be in charge of rationing services.[/QUOTE]


No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide, choose private insurance and allow the company bureaucrats to decide, or perhaps, if the insurer decided against a particular treatment, could dig into his pocket and make his own decision.

Much as we do now.

On an individual basis? No... but certain groups will get preferential treatment. HC rationing will impact the young and the elderly the most... those paying little to nothing in taxes and therefore of little to no value to a Collectivist society that runs on the taxation of its working age citizenry.

We all pay taxes. We seniors probably pay more as a percentage of our income than do working families, as we no longer have mortgage interest deductions, or dependent children for the most part. Nevertheless, it is a huge stretch to say that the government will favor working class people over seniors or youth simply because they pay more in taxes.

Seniors also have a higher percentage of active voters, which gives us a much bigger voice in government than other demographics. Just wait and see if Medicare is allowed to go under, or whether those still working will pay higher taxes to support it.


If, that is, we aren't successful in reining in the cost of medical care through reform. As it looks right now, I'm not too optimistic. My prediction is that nothing meaningful will come from the current partisan wrangling, that medical costs will continue to soar, that fewer and fewer Americans will have access to health care at all, that the cost of private insurance will soon be out of reach of most employers, and that the current public option will require higher taxes. Further, the cost to employers will force more and more corporations overseas where they don't have to pay for employee health insurance.

But, that is just my innate cynicism and pessimism, and it steers me wrong as much as 10% of the time.

 

[Dr.Who]

This POV from a poster who told me "make a casserole for a neighbor that has lung cancer"...LMAO

It is still the least that you could do for her. Have you done anything at all? At most you could pay her bills and drive her to appointments. But I have not asked of you did the most that you could do; only if you have done the least. So have you?

 

[Dr.Who]

Both Canada and the US are capitalist societies. The "more socialist" mantra is simply a talking point. If health care can be streamlined, then by all means, let's do so. If we don't, the costs will soon run us into bankruptcy. How much longer do you think we can continue to allow health care costs to increase faster than the rate of inflation? The current system is not sustainable.

In a free market the cost of things, even things like health care, fluctuate, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing, sometimes costs even grow or shrink faster than inflation.

Restore a regulated free market and the costs will come down. A free market is always sustainable.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, we absolutely can mortgage the future by continuing to allow health care costs to escalate. Pretty soon, not even the middle class will be able to afford it.

If people could not afford it then the cost would come down. It is pretty simple.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.

The only interpretation of the constitution that works is the one that interprets what it says and does not read into it things that it does not say. Has human nature changed in 200 years? Then it says we can write amendments.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.

The people who think about it just a little deeper know that we spend more because we get more and that other countries hide their true expenses in taxes.

Other countries might just spend more per what they get.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

It is still the least that you could do for her. Have you done anything at all? At most you could pay her bills and drive her to appointments. But I have not asked of you did the most that you could do; only if you have done the least. So have you?

She's my friend and what a real A$$hole would have to ask what I do or don't do for my dearly beloved neighbors...but that's where you and I obviously part ways!!!

People ASSume that I'm a rude jerk because they don't like my sense of humor; you on the other hand just ARE A RUDE JERK and revel in it!!! I don't bring my personal life on here for your entertainment...I used her very specific story because of the instance that was the example for the health topic...but when you have to be drawn a picture and you still just DON'T GET IT

I KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE ON PURPOSE AND I DON'T PLAY THOSE CHILDREN GAMES

 

[Dr.Who]

I don't know. Do a lot of Canadians come here? The US doesn't rank very high on the list of medical tourism destinations. In fact, we send a lot of medical tourists abroad from this country. If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?

They travel to save a dime.

If a measly 300,000 people out of 300 million want to travel and face the risk of decreased safety and an uncertain legal minefield then I think they should be allowed to.

But our politicians would not even want people on a public option to go to the medical tourist destination of the private sector right here at home.

 

[Dr.Who]

No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide, choose private insurance and allow the company bureaucrats to decide, or perhaps, if the insurer decided against a particular treatment, could dig into his pocket and make his own decision.

Americans do want choice. It is on e of the only reasons in polls that people indicate that they think at all favorable toward the public option.

But those who have read even parts of the the bills can see that the intent it to reduce options. The CBO has said that after Obamacare there would be less insurance companies offering insurance. And the legisltation makes it hard to go from the public option back to a private option.

Let the state gov create a public option that is not paid for by stealing from others and is not coercive and I would be in favor of it. But that is not happening any time soon.

 

[top gun]

She's my friend and what a real A$$hole would have to ask what I do or don't do for my dearly beloved neighbors...but that's where you and I obviously part ways!!!

People ASSume that I'm a rude jerk because they don't like my sense of humor; you on the other hand just ARE A RUDE JERK and revel in it!!! I don't bring my personal life on here for your entertainment...I used her very specific story because of the instance that was the example for the health topic...but when you have to be drawn a picture and you still just DON'T GET IT

I KNOW THAT YOU ARE BEING OBTUSE ON PURPOSE AND I DON'T PLAY THOSE CHILDREN GAMES

Blow it off... that's just their stupid game.

They know they're about to see long overdue Health Insurance Reform and they're playing that old tired and factually untrue BS that we don't need any reform the churches and a little individual help can solve the whole problem.

They're ridiculous.

Let them end up on the wrong side of history just like they were with Social Security & Medicare for elderly Americans. That's why only 20% & dropping now even consider themselves Republicant.

 

[Dr.Who]

She's my friend and what a real A$$hole would have to ask what I do or don't do for my dearly beloved neighbors...but that's where you and I obviously part ways!!!

It is not in the slightest out of line to ask a person who wants to shift the costs of one group of people to another group of people if he first has done anything at all to address the problem. If you had been unwilling to help at all then your opinion would have meant squat to me. Now that you have acknowledged that you help you at least can have a seat at the table of opinion.

I am glad you are helping your neighbor. Now just convince some more of your neigbors that being neighborly is the right thing to do and she will be helped as much as money and caring neighbors can help.

People ASSume that I'm a rude jerk because they don't like my sense of humor; you on the other hand just ARE A RUDE JERK and revel in it!!! I don't bring my personal life on here for your entertainment...I used her very specific story because of the instance that was the example for the health topic...but when you have to be drawn a picture and you still just DON'T GET IT

I don't believe I called you a jerk or even assumed it. It would not even be relevant to your arguments if you are a jerk or not.

 

[GenSeneca]

If you want a strict interpretation of the constitution, then 90% of everything that the federal government does is unconstitutional. Such a strict interpretation would have worked well in the 18th. century, but, luckily for us, we now live in the 21st.

Oh, now I understand where you're coming from... you think the constitution is an outdated, antiquated document and applaud the fact that its completely ignored by government.

Actually, yes I do. I thought everyone knew by now that the US was #1 in health care spending.

I did know we were number one, that wasn't at issue, it was your numbers. Here's what you originally said:

The fact remains that we pay 17% of our GDP for health care, while Canada pays 10% and France pays 7%.

According to the source you cited, you got some numbers wrong. The US is 15.5%, not 17%, it supports your claim of Canada at 10% but France is listed as being 11%, not 7%.

If we have the best medical care, why do so many Americans travel abroad?

If a Rolls Royce is so good, why doesn't everyone drive one?

So, WHO can't be trusted, but the the radio pundits who keep telling us we have the best medical care system in the world have no political agenda, and can be taken at face value. Sure, sure, that's believable.

I never cited a single radio pundit but you did cite WHO. Leave the strawmen and stereotypes to the Radical Leftists.

So, out of pocket expenses are going down, while insurance costs are going up? What conclusion do you draw from that?

There is a wedge (insurance and government) between the consumer and the provider. The larger the wedge, the greater the gap gets between what we pay out of pocket and what the third party pays... in short, costs rise in direct proportion to the lowering of out of pocket expenses. As those costs rise, people push to make the wedge larger. Problem is, the wedge is the problem causing the rise.

"Food insurance"? Now, there's a stretch.

You missed the point of the analogy. Lets say there is food insurance. You
(the consumer) pay a monthly bill of $50 to an insurance company (the third party) and you get an insurance card with which you can use to purchase food your grocer (the provider). Suddenly, your options at the supermarket are unlimited, lobster, steak and caviar every night... what the hell, its only $50 a month, live it up!

Pretty soon, the grocers supplier has a shortage of steak, lobster and caviar, so the cost of those products rise in an effort to lessen demand (supply/demand curve). Because you're insulated (by a third party) from the rise in costs, demand remains high despite the higher costs.

Next thing you know, your insurance company is not bringing in enough money to cover your expenses, so they have to raise rates to $100 a month to stay in business. Well you won't stand for any of that, greedy bastards, so you get government involved and the problem gets exponentially worse from there....

Because costs are rising too fast and so many people can no longer afford the costs, government passes a law that requires all grocers to give food away to those who can't afford to pay and don't have insurance. Those losses are then absorbed by the grocer or shifted onto the government and the taxpayer picks up the bill. Well now the demand for steak, lobster and caviar is astronomical, so once again, the price goes up in a vein attempt to try and lessen demand.

Once again, your insurance company has to raise your monthly premium to $150 a month, greedy bastards, and you're not pleased with the costs rising out of control.

Now the insurance company, the grocer and you are all frothing at the mouth demanding government "do something" to bring costs under control.

Enter the Public Option.

Government creates a public option and sets their rates at $50 a month (and subsidize the rest on the backs of taxpayers), downright reasonable to you, and they pay the grocer his money so he can pay his supplier so everyone's happy... except the insurance provider who is now going out of business because he cannot shift his overages onto the taxpayer.

Well, government can't print money forever, so your taxes go up by $100 a month and you're fine with that because you want government to be fiscally responsible and its better than you giving $150 a month to those greedy bastards at the insurance company.

Another problem hits... The tax hikes aren't enough to cover the still surging costs and the overruns are now being pushed onto the federal debt. Because there has been no reduction of demand and the supply is dwindling, costs still continue to rise. So here comes rationing.

Before long, those greedy insurance companies are out of business, you're paying an extra $200 a month in taxes on top of the $50 a month premium you pay for the Public Option but you can only purchase crackers and bacon bits with your coverage.

Bottom line, when the free markets are not allowed to function according to the supply and demand curve - because there is a wedge separating the consumer from the provider - the result is exponential growth of costs on one end and an equally exponential diminishing of supply on the other.

No, the individual would decide who should be in charge of rationing. He/she could choose the public option, and allow government to decide...

Once there is a public option, everyone has to pay into it whether they use it or not, so those not in the public option will be subsidizing the costs through higher taxes and will still have to pay for their own insurance as well.

To stick with the food analogy, if government took over McDonalds, taxpayers would be forced to subsidize the cost of its operation whether they ate there or not. They could go to Burger King but the kings costs would quickly skyrocket because their competition is selling burgers below market price (by shifting the difference onto the federal debt) and in the process creating a shortage in the supply chain.

it is a huge stretch to say that the government will favor working class people over seniors or youth simply because they pay more in taxes.

Government runs on taxes, they know who butters their bread.

Seniors also have a higher percentage of active voters, which gives us a much bigger voice in government than other demographics.

The voice of the people doesn't matter to Washington politicians, they think they know what's best for you and they are pushing for the "greater good" of society. If that means you have to go with less, then that's a sacrifice you are expected to make as your obligation to the collective.

Just wait and see if Medicare is allowed to go under, or whether those still working will pay higher taxes to support it.

Medicare part A alone has 34.6 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. Medicare and Social Security together have 106.4 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities.

The welfare state is doomed to collapse and you cannot point to anything that suggests the trend will reverse itself.

You think there should be a revolt in America if we don't get Universal Healthcare... Wait till the bills for the welfare state start rolling in and then we will have a revolt on our hands.

My prediction is that nothing meaningful will come from the current partisan wrangling, that medical costs will continue to soar, that fewer and fewer Americans will have access to health care at all, that the cost of private insurance will soon be out of reach of most employers, and that the current public option will require higher taxes. Further, the cost to employers will force more and more corporations overseas where they don't have to pay for employee health insurance.

I think you've arrived at the correct conclusion despite your premise being wrong on the source of rising costs.

 

[chestnut]

you want the republican bill debated? Win the house , senate, or white house maybe and you can...but the american public said no to Republicans on all 3...so suck it up and enjoy being powerless. You had 8 years to debate it...you did not do it...

Polls show 50% of the people do not think it is the govt's responsiblityt to provide health care.