Breakfast with a Lib

[ASPCA4EVER]

The problem is that when one State gives full health care to all, then people who have no health care will move to that State and overwhelm it completely. It will become common practice for States to give indigent people prepaid tickets to the State where health care is available--this is being done in a manner of speaking now when hospitals put people into taxis and pay for them to taken away and dumped.

You may just have very will have solved the illegal immigration and our health care problem all in one statement: We either need to find a way in which to just absorb Mexico into our country, establish it as our 'WELFARE STATE', make it our primary location for free health care and stand back and watch the flow of humanity surge to the south and cross back over the border...WHAT A WIN - WIN PROPOSITION THAT WOULD BE. Now to find a way to get that moving...hmmmm

 

[ripcord]

Federal government subsidizes the public option through taxation whereas private insurers are limited to their customers for income. I.E., Everyone pays for the public option whether or not they use it and whether or not they also pay for insurance through the private sector. Financially, that is a big bonus for government, they have no limit on their revenue base while private insurance is limited only to those who choose to purchase their product.

Government also doesn't need to make a profit to stay in business. So the government option can undercut their private sector competition, putting them out of business because government can operate their option in the red (bankruptcy) whereas the private sector needs to make a profit to stay in business.

Government also gets to write the rules by which private insurance must operate while exempting themselves from abiding by the same rules... It would be like playing a basketball game where the private insurers are on one team and they are limited in where they can travel on the court etc. The government team also serves as referees for the game, so they can change the rules, or make calls as they see fit, and have an entirely different set of rules for themselves with no one to call them for fouls.

Every proposal for a public option I have read exactly excludes most of what you say. The Government plan would not be allowed to operate in the red and, in most plans, would be required to make a profit. Additionally, the government would be precluded from "writing the rules for private insurers or exempting themselves from any rules. In other words, it would not be a "takeover" but an attempt to level the field and exclude the rip-off pricing that is now in effect. Sometimes its good to actually read something you commit on.

 

[GenSeneca]

The Government plan would not be allowed to operate in the red

Government, and its many programs, operates in the red every year.

and, in most plans, would be required to make a profit.

Do all taxpayers have to subsidize the "public option" whether they use it or not? The answer is yes, yes they do.

Additionally, the government would be precluded from "writing the rules for private insurers or exempting themselves from any rules.

Government can compete against the insurance companies nation wide while private insurance companies are limited to operating only in-state or selected regions. I.E., Government forces private insurers to follow rules government itself does not have to follow.

In other words, it would not be a "takeover"

Did I say it was a "takeover"? No I did not. I simply agree with the Democrats who are out there stating a public option would drive private insurance out of business... That's the plan of the Radical Left, to eliminate private insurance and move the country to a single payer government system:

Obama: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program..... There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system."

Schakowsky: "A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer."

but an attempt to level the field .

Only in the leftists perverted sense of what constitutes "fair".

and exclude the rip-off pricing that is now in effect.

As the government has become more involved in the Medical industry, the prices have skyrocketed. But you don't see the cause and effect of governments intrusion, instead you actually think the governments truly capable of operating more efficiently than the private sector despite decades of massive debts, deficits, fraud and waste that claim otherwise.

Sometimes its good to actually read something you commit on.

I am committed to the principles of capitalism.

 

[GenSeneca]

The problem is that when one State gives full health care to all, then people who have no health care will move to that State and overwhelm it completely.

The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to provide healthcare but the states are free to create such welfare programs if they like.

Only on a national level would a program of universal coverage work adequately.

Since you have no compunction about letting government ignore the consitution, don't ever complain when your constitutional rights are violated by the same government that you permitted to ignore the constitution.

What I don't understand is why so many people are unwilling to help their fellow countrymen. Aren't people more important than money?

Charity is given by ones own volition, that is by their own free will. What you are talking about is forced collectivism, elimination of free will through the use of force to compel individuals to act in accordance with your morality, that is evil.

In my opinion the wars you note are not protecting us

I was not arguing that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were protecting us, I think they are a waste of time since we aren't dealing with the root of the problem, the ideology that drives terrorist activities.

nearly as much as spending that money on rebuilding our infrastructure, advancing our techonology, and caring for our people would accomplish.

So rather than spending money we don't have on wars, we should spend money we dont' have here at home... Here is a radical Right Wing idea... How about we don't spend money we don't have and return to fiscal sanity?

 

[ripcord]

Government, and its many programs, operates in the red every year.


Do all taxpayers have to subsidize the "public option" whether they use it or not? The answer is yes, yes they do.


Government can compete against the insurance companies nation wide while private insurance companies are limited to operating only in-state or selected regions. I.E., Government forces private insurers to follow rules government itself does not have to follow.


Did I say it was a "takeover"? No I did not. I simply agree with the Democrats who are out there stating a public option would drive private insurance out of business... That's the plan of the Radical Left, to eliminate private insurance and move the country to a single payer government system:

Obama: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program..... There’s going to be potentially some transition process — I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system."

Schakowsky: "A public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer."


Only in the leftists perverted sense of what constitutes "fair".


As the government has become more involved in the Medical industry, the prices have skyrocketed. But you don't see the cause and effect of governments intrusion, instead you actually think the governments truly capable of operating more efficiently than the private sector despite decades of massive debts, deficits, fraud and waste that claim otherwise.


I am committed to the principles of capitalism.

Oh My, where to start ? Well lets take it from the top. Of course the government operates in the red every year. No one is claiming otherwise. But many government programs do not. It's all in how they are structured and what controls are in place. Generalizations like this do not help your argument, they just muddy the water. (A favorate trick of the rabid right.) The proposals I have read would make the public option self paying. i.e. no cost to the taxpayer. Again the old "You got to pay for it" is a favorate of the right wong and it just ain't true. Please don't argue that the government is incapable of a self pay program - of course they are. It just depends on the controls. So the inability of private insurers to operate nationally is the basis of your argument that they are forced to operate under different rules. So what. How does that hurt them ? If they can compete, they can compete whether that be regionally or nationally. I still have not seen an argument that a public option would put the private insurers out of business. All anyone is asking them to do is compete in the marketplace like every other business in America. And its got absolutely nothing to do with a single payer program. Thats not part of the argument and to bring it in is simply a red herring. I really dont know how to answer your allegation that "Leftists" have a perverted sense of "fair". Whats that got to do with anything ???? All your arguments are straight out of the Fox/talk radio bible of "truth" Remember the Lord sayeth: He who watches Fox will have mush for brains and he who listens to talk radio already does !)

 

[GenSeneca]

The proposals I have read would make the public option self paying. i.e. no cost to the taxpayer.

Post a link to it. There is a big difference between a "proposal" and an actual bill that's before congress.

Please don't argue that the government is incapable of a self pay program - of course they are. It just depends on the controls.

Name such a federal program.

So the inability of private insurers to operate nationally is the basis of your argument that they are forced to operate under different rules. So what.

It proves my point that government doesn't have to operate under the same rules as the private sector.

How does that hurt them ?

Its a national monopoly that also gets to craft the rules by which their regional competition must comply.

I still have not seen an argument that a public option would put the private insurers out of business.

Your Democrat leaders disagree, they are clearly stating that a public option would put private insurers out of business.

And its got absolutely nothing to do with a single payer program. Thats not part of the argument and to bring it in is simply a red herring.

Prominent Democrats have stated that a public option is the quickest road to single payer healthcare:

"I think the best way we’re going to get single payer, the only way, is to have a public option and demonstrate the strength of its power." - Barney Frank

I really dont know how to answer your allegation that "Leftists" have a perverted sense of "fair".

You're best bet would be to agree with me.

All your arguments are straight out of the Fox/talk radio bible of "truth" Remember the Lord sayeth: He who watches Fox will have mush for brains and he who listens to talk radio already does !)

Ad hominems don't cover up the fact that Democrats themselves are saying a public option would put private insurance out of business and lead to a single payer health care system... and I doubt they watch FOX news or listen to Conservative Talk Radio.

 

[ripcord]

We can go on and on round the May Pole. Don't know where you get your disinformation and, of course, you would say the same. Guess we just disagree.

 

[GenSeneca]

Don't know where you get your disinformation and, of course, you would say the same. Guess we just disagree.

I quoted my sources, elected Democrats currently serving in government.

 

[Gipper]

No one knows what is in this bill. Yet, liberals here think they know. Whats with that?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The federal government is not constitutionally authorized to provide healthcare but the states are free to create such welfare programs if they like.
Since you have no compunction about letting government ignore the consitution, don't ever complain when your constitutional rights are violated by the same government that you permitted to ignore the constitution.
Charity is given by ones own volition, that is by their own free will. What you are talking about is forced collectivism, elimination of free will through the use of force to compel individuals to act in accordance with your morality, that is evil.
I was not arguing that wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were protecting us, I think they are a waste of time since we aren't dealing with the root of the problem, the ideology that drives terrorist activities.
So rather than spending money we don't have on wars, we should spend money we dont' have here at home... Here is a radical Right Wing idea... How about we don't spend money we don't have and return to fiscal sanity?

Gosh, it's quick and easy.

 

[Gipper]

The difference between conservative and lib/progressives have been highlighted in this thread. Let me keep it going...

Conservatives believe in limited government and lib/progressives believe in unlimited government.

What is the history of these two ideologies? Unlimited government controlled by a few elites has been the model throughout history to the detriment of the people who must continually suffer indignities, injustice, and death at the hands of unlimited government.

Now limited government has a much shorter history. Only since 1787, in one nation has limited government existed (my apologies to ancient Greece). And in this short period, this one nation has become the greatest and freest nation the world has ever known.

Yet, libs/progressives want this nation destroyed and returned to unlimited totalitarian centralized government control. Why?

"Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

GenSenaca Stated: So rather than spending money we don't have on wars, we should spend money we dont' have here at home... Here is a radical Right Wing idea... How about we don't spend money we don't have and return to fiscal sanity?

Pearls of wisdom...you just proved that if you sit around and read...some thoughts of pure genius eventually FLOAT to the surface.

Ok, now that you've said it how do you plan on getting the rest of the Republicans to see the light? Or is that an 'IMPOSSIBLE MISSION'

 

[top gun]

Thanks for proving my point.

It's not like it's exactly hard to prove that Conservatives want no middle class just Lords and Serfs.

That's been their SOP from the beginning way back to the original Robber Barrons.

But eventually as the nation became more & more educated they could see that anything left completely unchecked, even capitalism, was certainly not a good nor fair scenario.

There are good moderate positions that can be taken that allow for a basic capitalist system while also including the needed social programs that the private sector simply can't or won't address because there would or could not be profit in it.

And when big business capitalists are left to police themselves, to self regulate. Well we all know where that leads...

 

[top gun]

The difference between conservative and lib/progressives have been highlighted in this thread. Let me keep it going...

Conservatives believe in limited government and lib/progressives believe in unlimited government.

Just more untrue spin I'm afraid.

There's a difference between supporting hugely important and historically proven critically needed things things like Social Security & Medicare or even healthcare for Americans and just babbling about that bad, bad bigger government.

Fact is the Conservatives elected Bush and he spent a lot more than Clinton.

And another fact is the Conservatives tend to be on the extreme warmonger fringe which of course creates the major military spending (vast military industrial complex) that President Eisenhower (a Republican by the way) warned us against.

 

[Gipper]

It's not like it's exactly hard to prove that Conservatives want no middle class just Lords and Serfs.

Geez...how in the world did America ever survive without all this progressive welfare BS??? How did America ever develop the largest middle class in the world???...in all of history???...without health care?

Such tough questions for those incapable of reason.