Forum Post: Why Do Republicans Deny We the People Health Care?
Posted 1 year ago on March 29, 2012, 11:20 a.m. EST by HitGirl
(2263)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Lost in the news articles and commentary this week about the Supreme Court arguments on health care law is a simple fact: Most of the other industrial nations avoid having a "mandate" by simply giving health care to everyone, thereby forcing all the people into the system. These nations pay for it by taxing them, so they have no choice but to pay.
Politically, it can be (and is) sold to the public as a benefit rather than a requirement. Why can't we do the same? Because it is forbidden in our current political culture to ever mention the word "tax."
Never mind that it would be cheaper, more efficient, and, judging from the experience of everyone else in the world, more effective.
If only some politician would say this out loud...
-Steven Kyle (in his letter to the New York Times)
Your answer, Steven, is because it would violate the Republican code of less government and become yet another example (along with Social Security and Medicare) of how effective the government can be in providing for the well-being of We the People. Republicans call this their ideology, but these "ideals" have more to do with keeping money in their obese bank accounts than they do with any ultimate good for the country.
No one is denied health care. You mean why don't Republicans want to pay for people's insurance? The fact is that no one wants to pay for their own insurance, Republican or Democrat.
To my knowledge, every first world country has some form of universal healthcare aside from the US.
It's certainly needed here but enough people seem afraid of anything with that term socialism attached. Toss in occasional news stories from the UK and Canada about problems with their systems and people fight change. A single payer is certainly the way to go.
The fear of socialism in America is truly ignorant and is a result of fear mongering by our government, given that we are already a socialist society. the only difference being that our government is not transparent about how they ' control' and manipulate and spy on us. Americans need to get with the program and the real agenda that has been unfolding before them.
If you go to the ER, you will get service, whether you have ability to pay or not.
Only if you are on the verge of death or in labor. The emergency room will not refill prescription drugs needed to treat long term illness. It will not monitor a diabetic, do blood tests or breast exams that may catch an illness before it is life threatening. Hospitals routinely turn sick people away if they can't prove they can pay. This is legal. EMTALA (The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986) only requires an emergency room to stabilize. Most sick people are not on the verge of death. You also disregard the fact that people in other countries are not financially bankrupted if they become ill.
and ? whats your point? go move to one of them. We have a constitution which is the law of the land. If you prefer something else - move
It's cynical, but certainly true, no one wants to actually pay for insurance.
Jen, which planet are you on? It's not the earth!
You said, "No one is denied health care."
Ever here of pre-existing conditions? Obviously not.
How old are you? 12
That would explain why you haven't a clue what the health care debate is even about!
You've made the same error as the poster, you're confusing health insurance with health care.
If you are ill or injured and show up at an emergency room you must be treated. That is receiving health care. Anyone and everyone can get it, hospitals are required by law to treat you. Many county health departments also provide free care also but I don't know if that is so in all states.
Insurance is a business and it only works because most of those paying in never use the service they pay for. This is why the mandate was seen as needed, to provide a large number of healthy individuals that would pay in but not use up health care dollars. Insurance is intended to share the risk not actually provide care for everyone. As a business, they would prefer limit what they pay out, hence the old preexisting condition restriction. The mandate's other purpose was to make sure people didn't wait until they needed expensive treatments then sign up for insurance. The law is an insurance law with some insurance entitlements thrown in.
Wake up, Jen. The Republicans won't touch single-payer health care. They are the ones making "tax" and "socialism" dirty words.
Please take a little look at one American's view of Finnish Healthcare :
"The Truth about Socialized Medicine", by Audrey Mayer : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23147.htm .
When a society is actually motivated by 'The Public Good' as well as reason and evidence & 'love and logic' ... many myriad marvelous opportunities can open up !!
per aspera ad astra ...
Now, I want to live in Finland...:(
they are dirty words
So, you want to get rid of Social Security too?
In it's current form? Ya. Or at least make legislation that prevents congress from spending it. There was supposed to be a 2 Trillion dollar fund that wasn't supposed to be used for anything but SSI. Then congress spent it.
Exactly. They are stealing my money right now, and Im not going to get anything in return. I could invest it much better than DC.
they are dirty words if you like Liberty. If you want safety & security above all else go with Socialism & high taxes. you are not alive.
Of course they won't, Americans are too split on it. The insured are selfishly happy with the way things are for them. The poor are powerless and characterized as being greedy, wanting something for free. A majority fear that nationalized health care will make things worse for them.
Politically the Republicans are on the safe side of the issue. They even have the argument that anyone walking into a hospital gets treated, going for them. I'm not saying it's right, single payer is the only way to go, but people are selfish, they don't want to risk the change and lose what they have to help someone else. If they did neither party would block it.
A majority fear that nationalized health care will make things worse for them? Where do you get your info? You need to site your sources. A majority of people don't even have insurance nor can they afford doctor visits. Republicans are on the side of the insurance vultures because they can make a buck off the investment. What planet did you say you were from??
First we agree that nationalized health care is the bast way for the nation to go. Yes Republicans are against it, but the Democrats know they don't have the support to nationalize and are not willing to risk reelection to do the right thing either. I'm not sure which side is worse.
One of the big selling points of Obama-care was if you are happy with your current plan you can keep it. So we have the Democrats saying NO to the best idea, single payer. When all this started they didn't need one Republican vote. The Unions won't support dropping their employer paid plan for a nationalized plan. That's why one never got a serious look.
The Republican party is certainly obstructionist, blocking nationalized health care. I see the Democrats as only marginally better, offering this lame confusing package that will likely only make insurance companies better off.
You may have reason to hate Republicans, I'm not arguing for them, but you're letting that cloud the reality that the Democrats didn't do what is right either.
Again. I don't agree. The Democrats (excepting the progressives) wouldn't consider single payer because the state of politics in America has made them beholden to the insurance companies. Polls show that a majority of Americans favor a single payer system.
Insurance companies or unions, I'm not sure it's worth arguing over, we can both agree politicians on both sides of the isle are corrupt.
That's very true. I just wanted to stress that Americans do want a single payer system. Everyone I talk to says so, even the conservatives I know.
That must be the majority of the 300 million americans, right? WOW you know a lot of people!
Lots of legitimate polls say the same.
Polls... lol. If you actually think that polls are taken completely unbiasedly and that the results aren't skewed to show whatever it is that the pollsters want to be shown then you're a moron.
You believe that a 1000 person sample can adequately portray the rest of the country? 300 million people? You're dumb if you believe that.
No offense.
There's a margin of error (usually described within the polls themselves), but otherwise they are accurate. You need only read the poll to find out if the language is skewing the results. Calling people dumb is a defense mechanism for when you don't have any other legitimate argument.
Have Americans been told exactly what a "single payer" system entails, specifically. Sounds great as a sound bite. Sounds like a single entity is paying, and it isn't them. Sounds like an unlimited buffet of benefits, free. It isn't. Has anyone calculated what exactly the added tax rate is to cover "free healthcare" and how extensive this healthcare is? There hasn't been any, and there won't be, mainly because once you get into the nitty gritty details, people aren't going to like what they hear. They will think, "Fine, I'll pay the damned tax, but I better get a prompt heart transplant if I need one, no lifetime yearly or max benefits, basically on demand healthcare anytime I want it." That's the reality of the expectations you'll have. I personally am in favor of calculating a small tax to cover catastrophic health insurance for everyone, and then people can either buy insurance or pay out of pocket for routine healthcare visits. Similar to auto insurance. You're covered for big damage from a wreck through your insurance, but you pay for oil changes, spark plugs, tires, etc. on your own.
Why not leave the catastrophic to the insurance companies and the preventive care to We the People thru single payer. It would make for a healthier population. Granted, the system would be somewhat callous for those not covered by insurance.
Either way would be fine with me, but the catastrophic is eminently more expensive, so we'd still get stuck with the bills for people who don't buy insurance for the catastrophic. I'd think it would be cheaper to tax for the catastrophic, and have people just pay for their $50 office visits in cash and have a max out of pocket yearly cost as a backstop against bankruptcy. The point is to get some level of personal responsibility to the degree that you can afford it. There are those that simply don't make enough money to afford shelter and food, much less healthcare. Then there are those who make enough, but choose to spend on other things and who game the system. There has to be "skin in the game" from everyone, but without mandating a certain type of coverage or a one-size-fits-all approach.
Something would have to be worked out for people who couldn't afford the insurance.
Of course, but you have to have a dividing line somewhere. Republicans fight so hard against this because they see this as just getting a foot in the door, and then over time there are invented new justifications for raising taxes, no matter how minimal they might be at first. It is the classic creation and ultimate enlargement of the welfare state. They are trying to keep it from getting created in the first place. I understand this and agree to a large extent, but I also see the need for personal responsibility on everyone's part in contributing to the system to make sure everyone is covered to some extent and that people aren't taken advantage of by those that don't participate.
The problem with Republicans is they don't even like the stuff that works, like Social Security. -Scratch that - They hate the stuff that works because it proves their ideology is not gospel. I really can't tell their ideology from their self-interest. I just know it is Republican ideology that is destroying the middle class and they will lie through their teeth about it.
[Removed]
i would go for it.. but in bad times like these when you do not know if you will have a job.. to be in fear of losing your home, your bank account, because you have to put all your money into house payments and not buy insurance is a crazy idea. what i hear is that if you do not pay for your insurance.. there is a tax fine. tax fine means seizure of property if not paid... seriously... if you get down and are working for bare minimum .. what matters to you ? living in a house.. and not getting health care.. or living in a car and paying for health care? most i think would do with out healthcare as opposed to giving up a house to the tax man. unless the income cut off for payment is somewhere are around 50k its not doable.. all it does is insure more people lose homes and money to irs fines. cause you know..if you dont have the money to pay.. they just keep adding on. and on until theres no hope left that you could ever pay it off. so they sieze whatever property you may have eeked out of the system before it went down. its a no win
A single payer or nationalized health care system would mean that we are all covered by the government. Premiums are more or less part of all our taxes.
The current law has provisions for some government help depending on the size of your family and your income.
true if it was free,. taken out in income tax.. that would be ok. but this law.. sets it up for anyone that fall on hard times to be targeted by the irs. besides.. even if you pay for premiums if your working on a tight margin,, you cant afford 3000 deductible a year. same as not having insurance only still having to pay out for it.
Nothing is going to make health care all that much cheaper, single payer will collect premiums or taxes up front, then when you need it you get the care.
Remove the middleman and use a nonprofit government universal system. Should cut your costs by 80 %
About 85% of Americans have some form of coverage (whether it be private insurance, VA healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, military Tricare, etc.), so the vast majority of Americans are covered. Moreover, the most common objection to healthcare reform I hear pertains to fear of radically changing the system (albeit my evidence is anecdotal, I think this probably does represent one of the major objections to Obama's healthcare reform package). Nonetheless, it doesn't matter, 15% uninsured in unconscionable in a so called civilized/modern society.
However, I did see a poll where 2/3 of Americans favored universal Medicare. So maybe the whole "if you're happy with your current plan you can keep it" mantra was a manufactured argument (for the sake of insurance companies)?
Americans Without Health Insurance Rise to 52 Million on Job Loss, Expense
Unemployment and rising expenses caused 9 million Americans to lose health insurance during the past two years, according to researchers backed by a group advocating access to health care.
Losses of coverage helped swell the ranks of uninsured adults in the U.S. to 52 million in 2010, according to a study released today by the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that says it backs research aimed at expanding and improving care. An additional 73 million adults had difficulties paying for health care and 75 million deferred treatment because they couldn’t afford it, researchers said.
President Barack Obama’s health overhaul will provide access to insurance to almost all of the currently uninsured through expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor and through private health plans, said Sara Collins, a study author. Federal subsidies and rules on affordability and mandated benefits will allow many to buy coverage by 2014 when the law is due to take full effect, she said. The law is being challenged in court cases questioning its constitutionality.
“The numbers underscore the need for this reform, particularly for low- and moderate-income families,” Collins, an economist at the Commonwealth Fund, said yesterday in a telephone interview. “If the law doesn’t move forward, it will be devastating for these families.”
Yeah, I support it (even though I view it as, at best, a less than ideal solution, and at worse, a grab bag of goodies for big insurance/pharma). I mean, my support for it is simply because millions of people need insurance (and it's the only game in town at the moment).
I know what you mean. I wanted to vomit when I heard this was going to pass with no public option.
I think a majority of Americans don't like being told what to do, what is good for them, and what is for the "public good". They don't like having to for instance, pay for maternity and contraception benefits when they're a single male. Personally, I think coverage for catastrophic insurance should be calculated, and then a tax levied to make sure everyone is at least covered for unplanned for accidents, sudden illnesses, etc. Then, people can add onto coverage if they wish, kind of like ordering off a menu at a restaurant. The key should be to preserve as much freedom as possible for individuals while at the same time doing our best to eliminate free riders.
Leftists are on the side of the government vultures. Most do in fact have healthcare insurance. Most also can afford doctor's visits. Who do you suppose is paying for them now? Any guess? But for those that can't (or won't) pay or their own, liberals are against enforcing our borders to at least help keep the numbers and costs under control. More dependents, more government, more liberals living in alternate reality.
Many people want something for free. Many, like you probably, see "government care" merely as "someone else pays for it care" and just another goodie that falls from the sky.
There's this fantasy that government is efficient, responsive, and never says "no". But then there's no evidence to support this assumption. The retards at the Post Office can't even adjust to email and even closing the most unused Post Offices becomes something of politics and a union, anything but the underlying issue of delivering what's left of the fucking mail. Healthcare will be the same thing.
The post office has functioned fine for many decades. Whenever I placed a letter out on my front porch a postal carrier made a house call and picked it up. Like magic it would arrive at its destination. You are ignoring facts (which is typical for a dumb-ass Republican) that other countries have gone to efficient single payer systems. They are spending far less and getting better healthcare results. You are the one living in a fantasy world that ignores evidence and studies. Maybe if you pulled your head out of your fat ass (along with the Republican drones like you) our country might actually progress a little.
The past isn't the future, sweetie. No doubt the government and the unions would like to keep us in the past, but now we have email. Government is simply awful at handling change.
Those systems aren't efficient, they just bat down demand with rationing.
Pretty funny how someone defending email denial wants to talk about progress. LOL.
What's funny is your talk of progress while defending a party that wants to regress us back to a time before the New Deal. Take your own advice: The past isn't the future and it's not going to be, sweetie. And for some the future is coming faster than others. Just ask Scott Walker. LoL.
Email and the Post Office: Government and change don't mix. I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that they use trucks and not horses and just be thankful for that as about all we can expect from government and unions.
Yes, Scott Walker might lose and the unions might regain control of Wisconsin state government. It's good to elect your own boss, if you're one the employees. Not so good if you just happen to be an ordinary citizen.
But, of course, leftists cheer the union control of government. They favor the entrenched few that work for government over the many that pay for it and expect honest provision of services. Why? I have no idea.
The New Deal is a ponzi scheme. FDR also gave us FHA and Fannie Mae and ramped government into becoming the biggest housing pimp in history. That little gift too blew up in our faces. Another job well done!
Government should run for the benefit of its people, not just its employees. We'll see if this principle stands or falls in Wisconsin.
Why don't you just say it? Why don't you tell us all how you hate Social Security too? Be honest for a change. It's just a forum. Why are you nibbling at the edges. Let's hear what you're really all about.
For liberals, everyone's always a "racist", a "sexist", or a "hater". You're right on schedule.
Social Security is a ponzi scheme. But don't ask my opinion, look at what the public says. The politicians gave a tax cut on social security. It was seen as crucial for "working families". But why? It's just another program where people see value in the benefits, but not enough so to pay the taxes. That's quite an endorsement. Government can sell what it offers only when it's free.
SS is not a ponzi scheme. It collects revenue and pays out. The stock market is a ponzi scheme. Most stock gains depend on the idea of never ending growth. Maybe that should be outlawed if we are troubled by ponzi schemes.
You're the one who's right on schedule. Thanks for your honesty.
Just another "hater" that watches the Post Office pretend email doesn't exist, that knows social security is a ponzi scheme, that realizes how FDR ramped the government into pimping housing, and that opposes unions claiming government as their own.
FDR pimped housing? The housing loan system worked flawlessly for over 6 decades, and failed because of republican sponsored deregulation. The vast majority of failed mortgage securities were handled by Wall Street banks and not Fannie and Freddy. The deregulation that F and F finally got (which led to their losses) was what they requested because they were loosing so much market share from Wall Street mortgage securitization. F and F bailout was $150 billions. Where did the remaining $550 billion go? Wall Street!!!
Flawlessly. Great. LOL. Government had no business pimping housing. It grew out of the Depression and like so much of what government does, long outlasted any potential legitimate purpose. Then it exploding right in the taxpayers' face. Thanks, FDR!
Wall Street's "bailout" has been mostly paid back with a profit. You should update your propaganda.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You'll get it right eventually.
Too late for that. I grew up.
"Now we have email." Yes we do. Thank the govt for the decades of university research that made the computer happen. Then thank the govt for creating the internet. Hence, we now do have email! The govt that can't do anything right created the computer, the internet, GPS, and put a man on the moon.
I'll thank the Post Office for adjusting accordingly. But it can't because it's government.
Please see petition
http://StandUpForMedicare.com
New troll here today, which gives this cause the Troll Association Seal of Approval. So energized to keep this post at top of page for a while.
Thanks Nevada1, I signed twittered and FaceBooked.
Support what is right. Support what is good.
Support will move us forward.
Unite in common cause.
http://standupformedicare.com/
Hi DkA, Thank you. Best Regards
Same to you. Always a pleasure to forward good direct action/lobbying opportunity.
United our voices will be overpowering.
Present issues and opportunities. This is how we will attract positive support for change.
Signed and tweeted, sir.
Thank you HitGirl. US medical is a wreck. Over priced, exclusive to many, and often low in quality. Corporations have destroyed US medical, as well as everything they touch. All about making extreme money and control, with no concern weather people live or die.
Why don't you send a check instead? Medicare is so fantastic, that you'll sign a petition demanding that someone else pays for it. That's quite an endorsement. LOL.
Dumbo stripped Medicare of half a trillion dollars. Better send a big fat check.
We need close down insurance companies. We need to get them out of the equation completely when it comes to healthcare. The hospitals & doctors should get paid directly & have no middle companies involved. This argument goes on forever like the WFE of wrestlers. We have the bad guys & the so called good guys but we all know it is rigged & completely fake. We need change! World Solidarity!
Well, Steve wanted to here a politician say it, but I guess that will do.
The following video addresses that issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY
I love that song. Thanks for reminding me. You are the best.
[Removed]
Quark doesn't mean to pay them directly himself, he meant to have them paid directly by the government. LOL.
See, government bureaucrats are good and people that work at private companies, like insurance companies are bad. Government is efficient and changes as things change. We know it's efficient because it doesn't have a profit (that never happens just because costs are bloated). Private companies are inefficient, we know this because they're able to generate profits. They're also rigid and unresponsive because that's how companies survive over time. LOL. Government says "yes", it's private companies that say "no". LOL.
Did I miss something, Quark?
Hi Quark3, Good post. Best Regards
Thanks, there are so many trolls here, it is nice to feel together. World Solidarity!
Hi Quark3, Troll attention proves the cause is just. Best not to waste a second feeding the troll. Keep on putting the truth out there. Best Regards
This is also about maintaining a dependent workforce.
Other places I use the word “slave” I use it because I mean to, it best describes what the GOP and the 1% want to achieve, though I admit I also like the word “peasant”, which is really closer to the truth, after all “owners” had to provide something to the slaves, the peasants work your land, you take what you want and leave them what you like.
If people can get healthcare, they might have the freedom to stand up in their workplace, or even quit.
They want you to believe healthcare costs a lot of money, they pay more to keep you dependent, it’s worth it to them, these guys didn’t get rich being foolish with money.
Hi facts, Good post. Best Regards
Thanks for reading.
So true, factsrfun. You couldn't have said it better.
Thank you so much.
Now, I'd like to here a politician say that out loud.
Everyday I pray.
Let's say there's a 30 year old without insurance... after the mandate is fully in place. Is he forced to buy insurance or pay a fine?
Or is this just made up by the republicans? It's the only argument I ever hear about. And honestly I haven't really done any research on the health care reform bill.
I do know I like what's in place now as I am currently covered due to aspects of the bill that are in place now.
My understanding is that at tax time he'll pay a higher amount for not being insured, but it won't be equal to the cost of insurance.
Do you have anymore specifics on that? Perhaps a good link?
I could see why people would be pissed about that if that is indeed the case. Is the idea behind this bill that if everyone pays for insurance that the cost of insurance will go down? Why would people be penalized for not buying insurance? Insurance is expensive.
I like aspects of the bill... stuff I know about... not the most informed on this topic, I'll be honest. The age change is how I was beneficially affected. but that wears off at 26 i believe. And then I'm out of luck again.
Because it is required there will be controls on the price of insurance and subsidies for those who can't afford it. I don't like it either. I think the idea is that people will realize that it makes much more sense to go to a single-payer system instead of a convoluted system that involves the insurance companies. When I track down some good links I'll post them for you.
Now I see why the healthcare reform bill had a lot of lobbyists rushing in.
I'd like to here more about the subsidies. At least that part sounds somewhat beneficial.
A real universal system through a tax would be 1 million times better. The insurance companies are a road block that just suck up cash instead of the cash going to just the healthcare, which would be a lower cost and more cost efficient system.
One of the big arguments I hear Republicans make is that hordes of people will rush to the doctors once healthcare is free, but that seems like an unlikely scenario with an easy fix in any case. As I recall, when my well-off parents were paying for my healthcare, I still dreaded seeing the doctor for fear he'd find something wrong. In addition, a small surcharge could be charged per visit (which could be waived for the extremely poor).
he is forced to buy obama care, if he does not he has to pay a fine ( TAX).
we are denied public healthcare because there is no profit in a public healthcare system. if greed is not served there is no legitimacy.
A cynical remark and mostly accurate, but lets not use that as an excuse not to change things. Being aware of the injustice is half the battle...right?
yes, you're right hg.
You're not such a cynic after all..:)
are you flirting!!!!
Just happy you're paralyzed by cynicism.
not totally, my fingers still work!
True, but in other Nations it is not that way. Why so much greed in America?
that is the $257,000 question. why the fuck is there so much greed in america????
Because they already have health insurance at our expense. They only want the public to believe "someone else" would be paying everyone else's health insurance.
It shouldn't even be called health insurance; it should be called wellness assurance, and everybody that lives in an advanced society should be guaranteed wellness assurance. It's a logical and reasonable deduction.
We pay for a legal system, right? We even provide people with free attorneys. There is no good reason we shouldn't be doing the same with health care.
Let's get our terminology straight (I'm talking to you repubs), calling health insurance, "insurance" is a misnomer. Insurance is not consistent with paying for regularly used services. Insurance is for out of the ordinary, catastrophic events. It should just be called health coverage, and payments, a benefit. Now that we got that straight, it's also important to realize that health coverage doesn't behave as a free market product, where consumers make rational buying decisions based on price. When you're not paying for something out of pocket, you don't care about price.
So the market for healthcare is already distorted, it already doesn't behave as a functional free market, so why use government to protect the health insurance industry? Certainly the efficiency argument is out the window (given that we're the only country without universal care, virtually all other countries have a single payer system of some sort, and we spend more for healthcare than any other nation on earth).
I would say this doesn't speak well for the free market, but in fairness to free market theory, healthcare does not operate according to free market principles (which is probably impossible anyway, given the unique nature of healthcare).
That is the crux of the matter. Should healthcare be a for-profit industry? I don't even like eating out at restaurants these days because I wonder what vendors they're using (how the quality of food is suffering) to save money...
My opinion is NO. Even if we wanted to use non-governmental entities to administrate "some" aspects of healthcare, they should at least be nonprofits. Of course I'm an anarchist, so in my view virtually everything should be employee owned and managed, organized as a co-op, unionized, and/or a nonprofit (yes, I know, I have an overactive imagination) :)
I know someone who just got hired by an ink company in Canada and he says the company is employee owned. I honestly hope it becomes a trend.
Don't make it so complicated. One word says it all. Corruption. C O R R U P T I O N. If corruption is an ideology, then I guess it could be an ideology. But that gives them too much credit. Let's just call it what it is. Some in the 1% made deals with the GOP pols, the Tea Party, the Libertarians the Evangelicals and they might characterize it as a deal with the devil. Maybe they all would, but I just call it by its scientific name, CORRUPTION.
There is no malice in it, it is only business. There are only two sponsors for a bill to ban House members from lobbying for life. Two sponsors and there won't be any more, unless a Dem or two decide to join them. Corruption.
I don't think mandated insurance is the way to go but i think that we should have a plan that just give tax subsidies to those who cant afford it. But only to those who cant afford it. Because there are people who dont want health insurance so they dont have to have it.
by tax subsidies i mean the government give them credit for the people who go there who dont have insurance or can not afford. If they can afford they have to pay certain percentage of the price just like insurance company.
Insurance should also be done like car insurance nation wide for more options and lower prices
Mandated insurance is not the way to go, but the letter above is about single-payer. I'm more interested in your opinion of that.
well that is an interesting topic as long as the market remains with many options. I could be more fine with it since People like myself would not want to be under and don't need to be under the government pay. I have experience a single payer health care before i was an ex-pat and live over in the UK for awhile even though i still had my insurance i witness and talk to others about it. For the most part it ran fine but i know that their system could not work here since we have ten times the amount of people living here. I would want a place where hospitals are all private. also in we fixed the FDA maybe medicine prices could go down since companies have such a small time to make a profit on a pill before the copyrights are up.
I got heart surgery a few years back and the surgery was deemed unnecessary to live. Not by my insurance company but by the general people who rate these things. Since i could take medicine everyday to lesson the risk of dying. The defect with my heart could of killed me at anytime with no warning. I was told i could not become extremely active nor raise my heart level to high otherwise i would have a heart attack and die. I was very young when this was diagnose it was not due to anything but the fact i was born with it. The story ends with me being fine my insurance company paid for it. So i was very happy. I am no longer with them but i have someone else now that my comp[any has given me.
The point of that small story is i wonder how the government would deal with things like that. Since medicine can be taken though its a not guaranteed to help. And until i know how they stand on issues like that i do not want my family to be covered by them in anyway. I don't care what i have to pay ill protect my family first.
Insurance agencies drop people like you for pre-existing condition all the time, or you get hosed on the premiums. You can't be sure how the government will do it? That's why you take part in the political process. You can be sure that private insurance agencies are only in it for the profit.
well everyone is in it for a profit that is the point of a business. So we could increase regulation to make it so you cant be dropped but then that increases cost due to the higher chances of paying for things. The government could drop us at anytime to because who regulates those with power no one. So until we know that they can not drop them ill stay with my insurance and yes i am completely happy with them.
Well how are you going to pay for those tax subsidies for people that want to buy insurance and can't afford it?
The people that don't want insurance, that end up in the hospital or emergency room - by law, they must be treated. Who pays for that? Charity?
Yeah it would be a add on to medicare expensive add one but not as much as obamacare.
Those that don't want it have to pay out of pocket and if not they have to pay it off like a car in monthly payments
Thank you for posting this, HitGirl.
It really says what needs to be said and it helps that the guy's a professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University. ur welcome.
The mandate concept was used because this was the same concept used by Republicans in 1993. A concept developed by the Heritage Foundation. Republicans only opposed it because... they don't like Pres. Obama?? Something about a birth certificate I think. I don't know.
Racism is alive and well. It helps bind the tea party together and it gives the the warm fuzzies.
[Removed]
So, since all that stuff is Republican propaganda and bullshit, you're saying you don't like Obama because of the color of his skin.
[Removed]
you're
[Removed]
Witch Doctor - Ooh Eeh Ooh Ah Aah Ting Tang Walla Walla Bing
[Removed]
obama hates america. it's evident from his actions. i dont care what his skin color is,...it's his IDEOLGY that's killing america. it's alway obama people that insert racism if you don't agre with them or point out obamas ( on purpose) failures
You hate America. It's clear from your constant negative comments about Americans.
what "constant negative comments about americans"? by the way you didnt answer my question as to how bush killed america.
8 long years of lies, coupled with a fast fall in manufacturing, and capped off with a crash of the Worlds economy.
There's more of course, but that should be enough.
Sorry you were sleeping.
what lies? under bush the gdp was between 5 and 7%, unemployment averaged at about 5% or lower, . bush tried to stop fannie and freddie but barney frank said there was no problem, nothing to look into, then it all fell apart. how was bush responsible for greece and the world economy?
You had to have been taking oxy along with Limbaugh, to have missed all of the lies Bush told over those 8 years.
You should be praising the Dems for waking you from your stupor.
What Bush lies? regarding the dems,..i've never been a fan of statism
See above. You really should pay a lot more attention and listen a lot less.
[Removed]
look up the unemployment numbers for bush's 8 years,...........look up the spending for bush's 8 years. lookup the GDP under bushs 8 years. look up the price of energy for bushs 8 years. obama cars nothing for the usa , he cares about taking down the usa,.......in that he's been successful.
I don't have to look up shit. I lived it.
You should try that sometime. it's very enlightening.
I watched production getting cut within 6mos. of Bush taking office.
Within a year, layoffs started.
7 yrs later plants were being shuttered.
Since you're so good at google. Try lies Bush told.
I'll see you in a couple of days, when you're done reading them all.
Till then? Ta ta.
you're a phoney. again,..what lies? the GDP was up, the inflation, low, energy price, low, unemployment , low.
Bush already killed it.
You're still far behind the curve.
under bush the unemployment rate was about 5%. low inflation, low fuel prices. still blaming bush? how did he kill the country?
You are absolutely correct about this. He wants to redistribute income pure and simple. And how about what he said to the Russians the other day. Putin must be doubled over laughing.
Can you document any of your statements?
Obamacare is good for the 1% not good for the 99%
The law in question has little to do with health care. It is the mandate to make the people give their money to a third party for insurance that is in question. While some Reps (nearly 20 years ago) supported such mandates seems to be justification for the Dems to do it today just shows the lack of honest debate on the subject. Health care costs need to be addressed. It can be argued that we, as a nation, paying more for health care and advancements in health care is simply the US paying its "fair share" in helping the human race. We are the wealthiest nation on earth, so shouldn't we pay the most for our health care to help the rest of the world.
Paying more for health care and getting poorer results only helps the rest of the world realize that we have a fucked-up system. Is that what you mean?
We pay for the fact that most of the innovations and advancements in health care come from the US. We pay more for cancer research and AIDS research than the rest of the world and we subsidize the rest of the world through such research. We also pay a large portion of the health care in third world counties because it is in our nature. We pay more because we can afford to; isn't that the OWS way?
I don't think those costs are figured in. I think they are referring to the costs of health care for American citizens.
Why do you think we pay so much for prescriptions? It is because the US patents only last for so long. We pay a higher rate so that Big Pharm can recuperate the cost of the development of those drugs. We pay high surgical costs because they are often new procedures that originated in the US that are then shared throughout the world where "free" health care cannot afford such innovations.
There is a difference between free health care and health care paid for by single payer insurance.
Agreed, no one has "free" health care and no one really ever will. There still remains the fact that because of our current health care model. we are able to continue to innovate and lead the world in health care progress. If we were to go to a single payer plan, we would have to stop development of health care innovation and begin rationing as most of the world has gone to.
Bullshit! That's a bullshit assumption! Just because you give greater access to health care doesn't mean there's no innovation. The prize is still there for doctors who excel. You have no faith in people. Einstein thought the way he did because of who he was (and nobody was trying to control his thinking) not because a prize was dangled in front of him.
That might have been true 20-30 years ago, but today we are losing our edge there too.
I see a lot of foreign made machinery in hospitals these days too.
There's lots of productive research in all the first World nations. There has been all along.
Drug corporations, same thing. There are large corporations like Bayer in Europe, and the rest are multi-national.
Bayer, even sells weed killer and such over here now.
Your argument doesn't hold up, they are doing as well or better than the oil corps. They are mostly over charging the insurance corporations over here and keeping prices artificially high, and I'll bet they own stock in them at the same time.
There's conflict of interest all over the place these days.
Although Republicons love it when Big Gumment helps their employers in Big Defense, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and in this case Big Insurance ~ Health Insurance.
Instead of a public service like roads and airports, schools and courts, Big Biz and their Cons keep health care a business, so they can make money. "Follow the Money!" It's pure GREED no matter what they say. One more reason why Cons and their zombie followers never have anything nice to say about the practices of other major countries who naturally provide health care for their citizen like any other public service (who also don't have hate & lie propaganda monopolies and nuts shooting people running rampant). And if Cons got their way, "Public Service" would be disappeared from the American lexicon. Remember that when some pedantic jackass blabs that the Cons and Dems are the same.
I like how you gave those other examples: Schools and courts and defense should never be corrupted by the profit motive, and health care should certainly fall in the same catagory. No one should be profiting because someone else is suffering or ill.
My rant went: "We have Public Schools, Water, Power, Transit on and on down the line, we need to join the rest of the modern world and institute/adapt/etc [ Public Healthcare ] and get rid of the Insurance Company [ Middleman ]"... blah blah. It would be flagged and censored within minutes.
Wonder how much Cheney's Dr. Frankenstein bill came to this time??
If you haven't seen "a day in the life of Joe Republican/conservative" you should look it up. The "commons."
http://www.liberalfix.com/2011/05/song-video-when-did-jesus-become.html ~ Enjoy
I wonder who was the anonymous vic....donor.
He has a farm in Indonesia for spare parts. Dr. Cheney's Island. Does all his hunting there now, too.
I think I've heard Thom Hartmann read it more than once.
Yeah, that's where the list of commons comes from, funny what's right in front of us can be invisible.
Enjoy the video.
The trajectory for rise in health care costs is frightening. One way to reduce costs is the individual mandate. On the other hand, the thought of the individual mandate becoming a 'gateway' bill to full government control over the actions of its people is also frightening. While there is a lot of data supporting the first case, I do not know of any real data that supports America is trending towards the latter. Though I would be happy to review data that said otherwise. The people in this country need to remove the republican/democrat political argument from this debate (and all debates) and just look at the facts.
How is it more constitutional if a State has a mandate? And, if the Supreme Court rules the mandate unconstitutional does that also effect those states that already have a mandate? Can the citizens of those states now sue?
Good Post
No one is denying you health care. If you can't afford it the government will provide it for you.
Repubs and most dems are obout privitazation and profit.They are not about the good of the people.They would like nothing more than to ptivatize ever function of our lives and are well on there way in succeding.Social security is a big on for them to steal.Postal service is well on it.s way.Not only do they want that bussiness but the postal services Land is worth tens if not hundreds of Billions.So in that case they get to gut a consitutional right,steal a bussiness and make a ton of cash selling off it.s assets.I belive many of our national parks will also be on the privatisers long list .Let us not forget our schools.Roads in some states and many military functions.Lastly our prison system is turning a profit.
Ron Paul won't support tax for public health care ?
He is all about the private sector. I imagine he wouldn't...
"Most of the other industrial nations (are) forcing all the people into the system".
That's possible also because they don't have so many slums like in the USA - large groups of people who want food, clothes, housing and now even health care for free. But they are getting there... They got lots of immigrants and didn't bother to really integrate them, and now the rest of the people simply can't afford to pay everything for them. Europeans started to close public hospitals. Because you can't pay more and more money with less and less resources. The doctors and the other people working in hospitals can't afford to work for free, you know..
There is a difference between healthcare and insurance which is often ignored. Which of the two are you suggesting that government can do better and cheaper?
Try actually reading the letter written by Steven Kyle, professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University. It is the body of my post, after all, and I think it's pretty straightforward.
Then the answer is healthcare itself. It is interesting that there is so much talk by the citizens of this country about government providing healthcare while all the bills being discussed in congress deal with insurance, not healthcare.
I agree. The government is all about their lobbyist buddies instead of earnestly seeking practical solutions for the American people.
Hey, it's not the Republicans who don't want to deny people health care it's going to be the Supreme Court if it does happen.
Right and it will be a party line vote...and guess what party will be voting to eliminate Obamacare: The same judges that appointed George Bush. Those judges are politicians in robes, SteveKJR. Don't believe otherwise.
So what you are saying is that those judges who vote Obamacare down are doing it because George Bush put them there and not because of the constitutionality of the issue.
Are you saying our Supreme Court is as corrupt as all other apects of Washington DC?
In it's current state......Yes!
Without a doubt.
I believe that the "mandate" was actually the strategy to get people to support a single payer taxed system. More people are likely to accept the perceived lessor of two evils.
Neither is evil. In fact, Republican propaganda aside, a majority of Americans want a single-payer system.
"Lessor of two evils", is merely a phrase and you know what I meant. This strategy is commonly used in politics and affective. Watch how it plays out.
Well, there is a group of Americans that would consider any gov intervention evil. I assumed that was your stance or what you were referring to.
My actual opinion on the current approach to healthcare or the single payer approach is not reflected in these comments. I just suspect that this is the chosen approach by the Dems to get what they really want, which is the single payer approach. Both sides have used this strategy.
what if they can't pay ?
You tell me.
[Deleted]
If you read the meat of the post, it's really more about why we lack a single-payer system.
I fully agree with your post, my frustration is aimed at the political process that gave us a 2,000 + page legislative monstrosity. Not even Thomas Aquinas could have fit so much gibberish in a single book (although, not for lack of trying) :)
Real government reform should include bills that are written in a straightforward manner so that the majority of middle-Americans can understand them, I agree. The convoluted bills and tax code are a symptom that are congress doesn't want clarity or oversight.
OSTA - one subject at a time legislation.
This is another issue everyone should be able to agree upon and so support.
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/
Everybody but congress and the lobbyists.
Good thing that we are The People then. The People need to lead and give needed direction to our government.
https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/
People take action.
Help guide government to serve health and prosperity for all.
That's even another subject. Granted, they're all connected.
Yep. That can be the hard thing to understand - it is all related all encompassing.
So it is easy to get lost in the process.
That is why it is good to provide issues and then attach any ongoing actions that are related.
This will help push clarity and provide access to action.
Otherwise, it starts looking like a congressional bill. LoL.
LOL too true.
We need to promote clarity in our own actions and communications.
which bill is that ?
The healthcare reform act ...
public health care is not a complicated concept
Right, but we didn't exactly get "public" healthcare out of this deal did we? If we did I would be applauding much louder. Like I said, I hope (for the sake of the uninsured) this law is not overturned, but let's just say I'm less than satisfied with it.
Steven Kyle is a professor of applied economics and management at Cornell University.
"These nations pay for it by taxing them, so they have no choice but to pay."
That makes govt provided health care stolen goods & services. Any time you force people to part with their money you're stealing from them.
The people denying others health care are the ones that advocate licensing, regulating, taxing, & subsidizing it. These things reduce the availability of it at the same time they raise the cost. If you really want to help people get health care let the free market do it. (No, we don't now have a free market in health care.)
“Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way” --Henry David Thoreau
Actually if we went to a single-payer system healthcare will become more available because there will be a greater market for it. If the demand is out their more people will train to meet it and costs will go down. The free market is dropping people from insurance rolls right and left. We are already in crises. The free market answer did not work. Weren't you around when Bush crashed the economy by not enforcing any SEC regulations? Your free market just made the fraudsters rich and good hard-working people got hosed. You know where you can stick your free market.
The fact that there is an SEC shows that there isn't a free market. Bush was the biggest regulator since Johnson:
"Figure 1 shows the real increase in regulatory spending by full presidential term between 1960 and 2009. During both his terms, President Bush outspent every one of his recent predecessors. In his first term, he increased spending on regulatory agencies by $8.3 billion, almost doubling what President Clinton—the second biggest spender—spent during his second term.
"The data also show that, adjusted for inflation, expenditures for the category of finance and banking were cut by 3 percent during the Clinton years and rose 29 percent from 2001 to 2009, making it hard to argue that Bush deregulated the financial sector." http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
Thank you for displaying your ignorance.
Spending on government agencies and enforcing regulations are not one and the same.
If only they did nothing but post on Facebook & visit porn sites! Unfortunately, spending has to be justified so more bureaucracy means more regulation:
"Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001."
http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off
http://dailykingfish.com/2012/04/02/buddysinglepayer/
I love the way this sounds with that Southern twang.
Wow. Any other Republicans daring to say that?
Most of them before the Powell Memo below, and here's some other stuff.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/25-9 http://colorofchange.org/campaign/alec/ http://www.alternet.org/economy/154653/free_ride!_meet_the_companies_that_don%27t_even_pretend_to_pay_taxes?page=entire
Same reason the Dems do. Ins Companies are major funders of both corrupted sell out parties
There are progressive Dems pushing for single-payer health care. Show me the progressive Republicans...
The equivalent in their party would be those that want gov out all the way.
We either need NO gov in health care, or a single payer. Anything in between is corportism at it's worst- corportism of a fairly inelastic industry.
Both parties have had plenty of opportunities to fix this. Neither will. They dont bite he hand that feeds them.
You fail to note that there is a corporate interest in having NO gov. What you can't show me is Republicans acting purely in the public's interest. Why is that so hard to admit?
How could it be more clear that the oligarchs DO NOT want Democrats to be elected. If not, why would they be going to so much effort to convice us otherwise?
How do we get there? One step at a time. And one of those steps needs to be kicking every Republican in America out!
All the Republicans out of America or out of our government? Either would be nice.
I cant show you either of them acting in the public's interest. They both talk a good game, make a lot of bullshit promises.
But the legislation they pass is always the same corporatist nonsense.
[Removed]
who's denying you anything? The dems rammed the healthcare law through just like you wanted. Now it's wildly unpopular. 46% think it's unconstitutional & 43% think it is. 67% want it repealed. It costs twice what Obama said it would cost @ 1.8 Trillion over ten yrs. The communists have won on this no?
So, you're saying the Republicans are ready to institute a single-payer health care system (like they have in the other developed nations) once they get Obamacare out of the way? I missed that legislation. Has it already been voted for in the House?
I dont know what the GOP is planning. What is the dems plan once their first attempt at usurping the Constitution is finished? Question: Why didnt they pass single payer in the first place? Answer: because that is even more unpopular than this debacle.
Don't bullshit us. Everybody knows single payer rules in the polls. And everybody knows the Dems caved to the insurance lobby. Try living in reality for a change.
another good one: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/
show me one poll showing Americans want single payer
Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.
The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.”
Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.
Link to the full report...
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/SunMo_poll_0209.pdf
of course it all depends how you ask the question & who you are asking. Rasmussen uses all "likely" voters. So you get the opposite result. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose
I trust Rasmussen polls to reflect majority opinion like I trust Fox to give me fair and balanced news. All that's to the side though. You can conduct your own poll. People realize that their health care should not be left to the whims of profiteers in the insurance industry. People don't want to be an illness away from bankruptcy. People don't want to be exposed to sick people who otherwise would be treated in a universal system. Only a complete idiot or moral leper would defend the status quo.
Funny - Rasmussen results are the most accurate if you ever look after the fact. But you don't care about that. just smear & discredit anyone you disagree with.
funny how in the Forbes pie chart 73% want universal healthcare but only 57% want to pay for it.
Both majorities...
They took their lead from WallStreet.
They want it all, and don't want to pay for any of it.
So they make us pay for it..........:)
http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-payer/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/04/06/a-dose-of-socialism-could-save-our-states-state-sponsored-single-payer-healthcare-would-bring-in-business-jobs/
there's couple.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/
Here's the rub.
You're endorsing a failed business model.
All the polls in the world won't change that. Although marketers and PR departments can affect polls.
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/
marketers & PR depts can affect polls - so that doesn't work both ways I suppose. The virtuousness on the left would never use propaganda or misleading information. It is only the evil conservatives lol! REALLY!?
what happened to "if you like your healthcare plan you can keep it"? what happened to Obama campaigning against the mandate when debating Hillary Clinton, then signing it in to law? The failed business model exist because govt is too involved already. Why do states have a monopoly on health insurance? why is med mal ins so expensive? All Govt interventions led to this & now you want even more govt. every time govt addresses a problem they make it worse then want to intervene even more to fix their mistakes.
It was actually health care(sic) profiteering that got us in the mess.
As it always seems to do.
Just another nonpartisan essay, you refuse to read.
I'm sure you can find all you want at CATO or Heritage.
yea & You can find all you want @ the NY Times & MSNBC. what about the "if you like your health insurance you can keep it"? explain that one & the sudden reversal on the mandate? Profiteering by the monopolies Insurance companies have with limited competition. why is that? why has government created State monopolies for the insurance companies?
Are you daft?
Those corporations created their own non competitive markets, with the aid of WallStreet profiteers.
They only create the illusion of competition.
That's what marketers do.
I dont know what "daft" means. everyone is a profiteer including you. some are just better at it than others.
If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves. – Thomas Sowell
The quote you're spamming would be better sent to any number of libe(R)tarian and (R)epelican't forums.
It's no wonder you have no concept of the term daft.
Americans Work 107 Days to Pay Taxes in ’12
here's one who poles "likely voters" that shows the opposite. The reason they didnt take up even a public option is it would be political suicide as evidenced by the 2010 midterm election. It would have been even worse!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/32_favor_single_payer_health_care_57_oppose
LOL......Rasmussen the FLAKESnews of pollsters.
You do like your propaganda well slanted, don't you?
As well as you like to ignore the simple fact that this same subject has been dealt with umpteen times around here.
Have a bit of truth.
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/slogans-versus-substance-in-the-battle-over-obamacares-future/
I can easily argue the same point about the Lefty NY Times poll. Explain the shellacking that took place in the 2010 midterms? You think that was over NO public option or single payer lol?
That's why I provided you with nonpartisan essays.
That you probably refused to read.
While you insist on partisanship.
oh - so you decide what is partisan ? Nothing is non partisan. so why the shellacking in 2010? was it because there was no single payer proposal being enacted?
Only in your mind can the truth be considered partisan.
People were fooled by the Kochs propaganda campaign into thinking the teabaggers were some kind new thing.
No. see above.
you still haven't answered the questions what happened to "if you like your health insurance you can keep it"? Was that a lie or truth? Why the shellacking in 2010 midterms?
I'm keeping mine, so I have no idea what you are talking about.
I explained that, You just ignored it.
When are you going to read the links I provided?
Afraid of the truth? Do you need ALEC, CATO, Heritage or some other partisan "think tank" to hold your hand?
I read the link - big deal. Your Kock comments are absurd. Regardless - the people rejected Obamacare that's what that was about. So as long as you can keep your insurance Obama's comments are moot? I thought it was all about collectivism. You see how that is a crock & everybody looks out for themselves regardless what you are preaching about collectivism.
State Sponsored - no problem. Let the states do it. Then people can vote with their feet.
Only in your World can anyone vote with their feet.
Where do they keep the ballot box?
If you dont like it you can move . example the mass exodus from Welfare State California and mass influx to Freedom loving Texas.
That's moving, not voting.
It's something not everyone can do.
A very different concept.
Plus your assertions, are both highly questionable.
So please tell me where is the foot bound ballot box?
what assertions are highly questionable? voting with your feet - leaving a State when you find their high tax policies objectionable. people do it all the time. People with money being ripped off leave & welfare seeking people move to the welfare state for the free benefits. where have you been?
Most of what you post are assertions.
Assertions that you run with, as though they were hard cold facts.
They are not, and your posts are so peppered with them, as to make dialog impossible.
I have to assume that is your purpose for being here.
Based on data from moving companies, California had the second-highest domestic population out-flow of any state in 2005, according to the report, “despite the beautiful weather, beaches, and mountains.”
http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56876/
If it's an assertion - so you tell me - what are the numbers of people moving to California & the number of people moving out of California? Of the domestic population, excluding immigrants.
It's a complex issue.
One that's unlikely to be described with any level accuracy by as biased a source as ALEC.
Non partisanship objectivity. is obviously not part of your nature.
I can see how it is complex for you my sympathies. nor is objectivity your nature. http://www.wnd.com/2008/02/56876/
the dems didn't even take up a public option because it would have been political suicide. They suffered a massive defeat in the 2010 midterms as it is lol!
If you believe that you don't know shit. lol
so tell me then - why did the dems lose so many seats in 2010?
They suffered those losses because the Republicans kept shouting about the mandate and death panels and a black man in the White House spending like a Bush.
You should get off this forum and get a life. You are truly delusional. You are a class A racist paranoid. You really are. Drum the hate for the president because he's black. You are a sick paranoid. Get off your drugs. Don't take another hit girl, your mind needs a break. People that don't like our president, are not racist. You are.
so you think they would have been happy if it were a single payer plan lol?
I think approval rate says it all.
what does that mean?
I agree. It should be (and should have been) called a tax. The Democrats were their usual chicken-shit scared selves and were afraid to just come out and say, "Yes, we're going to raise everyone's taxes". Why? Because they thought that the American people wouldn't quite be as empathetic as their polls purported to show and would reject it. I hope the SC throws the damn thing out and says, "Start over". This needs to get dealt with once and for all.
[Removed]
Here's my take. Basically what the whole SC argument boils down to is that Obamacare wasn't done legitimately, there were all kinds of contortions done to avoid calling the mandate a tax and further contortions (Cornhusker kickback, et al) to get the votes to pass it. What they're basically saying is, Congress does have the power to do this, but they need to go back and do it legitimately, tell the people we're going to call it a tax, that we're going to pay for healthcare with a tax, a new entitlement, and let the chips fall where they may. I am on the anti-Obamacare side, but I would abide by the votes of the American people if they were to vote in a single payer system. I think something this large should be voted on directly by the people, not by the representatives of the people, who have in most cases significant conflicts of interest or special interests influencing their votes. Take it straight to the people.
Unfortunately there is no mechanism to do this. What you're suggesting is Federal Ballot measures.
It's a shame. There ought to be a clamor for this issue to be decided by voters. While I am on the side of anti-Obamacare in general, I do see the need to have extreme downside protection. I don't think either side is 100% right. I do worry about unsustainability of costs and lack of freedom and choice, and I do recognize that we can't leave it to the kind auspices of the health insurers to treat people right.
How about a constitutional amendment allowing federal ballot measures. Maybe you should start something. I'd sign it.
I'm not sure where it would end. This certainly seems like an obvious case, but I can see different factions demanding that they be able to vote on damn near everything.
The way ballot measures usually works is a certain number of voter signatures is required to place an item on the ballot. It is more practical at the state level. Still not impossible on a larger scale. Obviously the Supreme Court would still get the final say on constitutionality.
With the internet now, it is possible to generate large numbers of petitions, signed electronically. Pretty soon we'd just do away with Congress (actually not that bad an idea, come to think of it) and vote on all legislation electronically. A definite conundrum. Maybe the President should take the lead and force Congress's hand on it, and try to get legal clearance ahead of time.
It would be political suicide. Imagine the president, "Congress, public opinion of your job is at an all-time low (probably because you don't really do anything for the public), so I'm introducing this legislation that will allow the public to make all your decisions for you via the internet. By the way, your jobs will become largely symbolic and so will your pay." LoL.
We can't do it because we are a nation of 310 million people; by 2050 that number will be over 700 million. There simply are not enough tax payers to pay the bill.
When Republicans and Conservatives say they want limited government they are actually saying two things: one, no unnecessary federal interference (which is ALL politically oriented rather than economically oriented) and lower federal taxes.
If the taxable income individual can't afford to pay his own medical bills, or even purchase insurance to do so, what makes you think he can afford to pay for everybody else's?
Not everybody is using healthcare at once. Why is a mandate working in Mitts state? You don't think these politicians have number crunchers to figure out what's feasible? That's why Mitt used a mandate. A university professor actually did the math for him.
It's not working there. Shut off the tube, tune out the rhetoric, and talk to the people.
right
the roads, rails, water, sewage, electricity, communication, education systems
facilitate commerce, trade, innovation and health
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
The new Health Care plan is terrible. It will prioritize people based on their ability to survive. It is just like England. They will give you surgery but then send you right on home. Plus it also FORCES you to purchase this healthcare witch is unconstitutional. Yesterday Obamas new budget was smashed by the house in a unanimous vote. Even the Democrats voted against it. You need to understand what this new Health Care plAn includes before you start running you're mouth about how bad the Republicans are. You can get healthcare you just need a job. You all don't deserve a free handout. The very elderly and truly disabled need help. Soldiers who lost their legs or a severe mental injury. While yes insurance company's can sometimes be greedy, that is not always the case. Don't say it's the Republicans who are denying you.
It is the Republicans that are denying people health care because they are sell-outs.
Bullshit!!!
Sell-outs and they pander to a nut-case base even when they don't believe half the shit that base is spouting and how could they when much of it doesn't make any fucking sense!
Have you ever traveled outside of the USA and received medical care? Paid for it, out of your own pocket, outside the USA? Paid for it, out of YOUR OWN pocket, in the United States?
Ever?
Interesting anecdote:
I was travelling in Southern China on business with an associate. We were joined by a local partner representative. My associate got a sinus infection so our partner took us to a hospital. She first called around (this was Shenzhen) to find the appropriate place for us (apparently there are different classes of hospitals).
When we arrived we went to a large waiting room about the size of a High School Gym. We sat in a row of chairs with what looked like ~ 75 other people. There was a large number board on the wall (reminded me of a bingo hall). As the numbers lit up someone from the chair section stood up and went up to the admittance counter.
Our partner went to the desk and got us a number. In less than five minutes after sitting down our number was called ahead of many others.
We went into a room where two doctors were waiting. They examined my associate, drew blood and sent it to the lab. 15 min later we had the results of both and a script for an antibiotic, Dristan (I did not know that it was even still in production) , and an herbal remedy.
We left the room and walked up to a window to pay. Total cost including the script: $18. We walked to the window next and were handed the meds. Total time at the hospital, 35 min.
I asked my partner if the rapid and comprehensive service was standard in China. She said no most people wait 6-7 hours, or come back the next day. Why were we treated so much better? Because we paid for the service, which is not confined to ex-pats, anybody that pays goes to the front of the line.
Yes, I have. Although, I've been relatively lucky health-wise.
Interesting anecdote:
I was travelling in Southern China on business with an associate. We were joined by a local partner representative. My associate got a sinus infection so our partner took us to a hospital. She first called around (this was Shenzhen) to find the appropriate place for us (apparently there are different classes of hospitals).
When we arrived we went to a large waiting room about the size of a High School Gym. We sat in a row of chairs with what looked like ~ 75 other people. There was a large number board on the wall (reminded me of a bingo hall). As the numbers lit up someone from the chair section stood up and went up to the admittance counter.
Our partner went to the desk and got us a number. In less than five minutes after sitting down our number was called ahead of many others.
We went into a room where two doctors were waiting. The examined my associate, drew blood and sent it to the lab. 15 min later we had the results of both and a script for an antibiotic, Dristan (I did not know that that was even still in production) , ad an herbal remedy.
We left the room and walked up to a window to pay. Total cost including the script: $18. We walked to the window next and were handed the meds.
I asked my partner if the rapid and comprehensive service was standard in China. She said no most people wait 6-7 hours, or come back the next day. Why were we treated so much better? Because we paid for the service, which is not confined to ex-pats, anybody that pays goes to the front of the line.
Oh really? Are you trying to tell me that it is possible to receive medical care that is both economical and expedient?
THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE (for most who believe all of DC's corporate BS) although I know the same holds very true in many other countries, not just "10 cents on the dollar" China.
Not at all.
I drew a couple of conclusions about this experience (I know it this is risky based on a single event but...):
In the face of a demand monopoly (like single payer health care or the US public school system) there will emerge a black market for the good or service. The $ 18 did not pay for the service, it was just the local bribe.
In such a system the wealthy will still have an advantage over the poor but the barrier for entry may not be so high.
Doctors are paid less in China than teachers. The single payer system there has made the medical profession an undesirable vocation, as a result the supply of MDs is low and the service poor.
China's single payer system hasn't existed for more than a year or two. Also China is is grossly overpopulated. China also has an endemic corruption problem. I doubt if you can draw any conclusions about single payer healthcare from such an example.
I agree. Small sample size is a problem. But it was an interesting experience. Imagine walking into the examining room only to find not one, but two MDs waiting for you! And they consulted with each other on the spot over the diagnosis.
MDs in the US seem to think that the only way for them to avoid idle time is to have a queue of 10 people each waiting for an hour.
BTW, this hospital visit was in 2007, and the $18 was not to pay for the service, it was the local bribe.
I had a friend return from China a few months ago. He told me a lot about the labor conditions and crowding, but he didn't use the medical. Sounds like a unique experience.
Where did he visit?
I'm not certain. He was there on business. I'd have to call and ask. Why? Is it important?
The conditions in China vary a lot. For folks in the south east and around Beijing things have improved dramatically over the last 15 years when I first started to visit.
In the west and north some things have actually gotten worse, partly because they are losing the best and brightest to the industrial areas.
Interesting fact, there are more practicing Christians in China today than in all of Europe.
India and South America are somewhat different although very reasonable.
Here, a single trip the the E room for stitches (not for me, I do crap like that myself) will easily set a person back 1500-3000.
I'm still struggling with your first conclusion.... I'll kick it about a bit more.
[Removed]
[Removed]
The following video addresses that issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTQ1WOC9RgY
[Removed]
[Removed]
Because Republicons are bitter miserable mental patients who wants everyone to be as miserable as they are.
And a big chunk of America is on board with that...scary.
The difference between the US experiment and most other industrial nations is the basic premise of self-governance and restricted federal power. That is why the US is one of the oldest democracies in the world, the largest economy, and preeminent international leader. To the extent that we are in decline the credit lies in our straying from this foundation.
For the security of national healthcare we give up our liberty.
How about a compromise?
Insurance tends to increase the cost of a thing. This has been demonstrated in many industries including auto repair, medical costs, and pharmaceuticals.
Why not fight the rising costs by eliminating insurance for most routine medical issues and treatments and offer insurance and a modest price, subsidized for the poor, for catastrophic health issues (one of the only medical procedures that has gone down in price is laser eye surgery, which is not covered by insurance)?
Market forces will keep the majority of the costs low for procedures we pay for ourselves, and the insurance will provide help for the most expensive procedures.
How about having the liberty to quit your job but still be able to see a doctor if you needed to with that kind of security, who knows what kind of great things we might accomplish.
A- fuckin'- men. Maybe once this bill is instituted there will actually be a little validity, though not much, to that right wing argument that the employer and employee are on the same footing when it comes to trading money for labor. If my health insurance is no longer based on my employment, than for once in my life I can tell my employer to fuck him self when he offers me slave wages for my labor. We will be a little closer to equal, and the right wing argument will actually make a little sense, though not much.
not if there's no money to pay insurance
right back to slave wages
single payer, get sick, see a doctor, what people are going to get their tonsials cut out just cause it's free? I don't think either of us think that
nope
BTW, good morning Matt
please, if you do away with all the fraud that the private/public, medicare/medicaid program generates, we will not only get affordable health care, but we will probably begin paying off the debt. Also if less people stop going into the emergency room with no insurance and profit is taken out of the equation, than health costs should stabilize. Whether the average person is cognizant of it or not, we already have universal wealth care; we just don't call it that.
plenty of stories of fools who loss their fingers for lack of insurance
Jesse I think you got it man, let's see where wages go when they got to pay enough to make you want to work, as it should be
How do you prevent people from quitting their jobs just to be bums?
The loss of liberty comes from becoming a slave to the state. If you depend on politicians for everything you must re-elect them regardless of how much you may dislike them. Ask the gun-owning union worker that is forced to vote Democrat, or the anti-war aeronautical engineer forced to vote Republican.
You never know the "bum" may want a cell phone, then they will have to get somekind of job, healthcare is something we should give each other because we are human
I agree that we should freely give to our fellow man simply because it is a moral imperative. That is different from the Gov taking money from the citizenry and spending it on the folly of their choosing and administration thereof (which BTW often accounts for much of the funds).
However small the number, there are some people that are just bums and will live off of and exploit the good will of others to their benefit.
That is their choice, but if you don't account for that, at least some of the limited resources meant for the truly needy will be squandered on the slackers. BTW, we are all slackers to some degree. It is a side of our nature, but a side we should try to overcome.
That's the wonderful thing about democracy we can express our morals through the voting booth, murder is wrong, get rid of those that won't fight it, healthcare is good get rid of those that won't provide it.
And those that won't earn it. Of course, freeloaders are good, those not willing to be freeloaded off of are bad. Can you make me an honorary occutard?
Maybe your right, if you don't vote you don't get healthcare, that might be a good ideal.
Maybe if you don't earn it, you don't get it. We have enough of a problem already with people voting themselves things.
It's America baby, we all own it, get over it.
No, I think I won't get over it, but instead be careful knowing that there are plenty of people like you wanting to live off of me via the ballot box. It's America, earn your own with the opportunity you've been given.
I love it you Johnny come lately's walking in here like a carpetbagger with pocket full of money thinking you can buy America, my folks fought the King and I'll fight you.
It's easier to just earn your own. Honest, it's a better life than waiting for government to deliver your share of your neighbor's dinner.
What you don't understand is we have all earned it, and further more not everything is about being fair, often this is not the case in life, single payer is the cheapest way to do the most good, that's what healthcare should about, we are not talking about trips to the inlands here.
Because it isn't. Single payer simply rations. Some are atrracted to it, but's just because it's a way to push their own costs on someone else. It's the fantasy of free.
down below you tell a lie most get a trust fund, some make it bigger, some make it smaller, but almost all the people you are talking about got a trust fund at some point
No, they didn't. Sorry, most well off people did it themselves.
everyone with single payer has better results for less money, how is that rationing? the rich still get to get whatever they want, it's the fear of losing a dependent workforce that scares you.
"This is also about maintaining a dependent workforce.
Other places I use the word “slave” I use it because I mean to, it best describes what the GOP and the 1% want to achieve, though I admit I also like the word “peasant”, which is really closer to the truth, after all “owners” had to provide something to the slaves, the peasants work your land, you take what you want and leave them what you like.
If people can get healthcare, they might have the freedom to stand up in their workplace, or even quit.
They want you to believe healthcare costs a lot of money, they pay more to keep you dependent, it’s worth it to them, these guys didn’t get rich being foolish with money."
They delay and restrict treatment. Liberlas bitch about some insurance guy in a "cube" as Michael says, but govt already says "no" more tha private care. Medicare and especialy Medicaid "cover" less than does much private insurance.
But people can and do get healthcare. I'm not sure what people you're talking about. Now if you mean get healthcare without somehow earning it, I agree, then you have less of a reason to work. Nancy Pelosi acknowledged this as she told people they can now quit their jobs.
Most well off people are self-made meaning they didn't inherit it. Hardly sounds like a nation of helpless peasants to me.
Having stuff handed to you from government hardly makes you free. Now you're just a dependent of another kind, to use your way of looking at.
Are you still being silly??
Yes of course, it's all you know how to do.
Does it pay well?
What you mean like Congress voting themselves a raise or free Health coverage? Yes we do have a problem with people voting themselves privileges.
That is why there are movements against corruption and crime. That is why the numbers getting involved are growing.
That is why the democratic process must be owned by The People it was created for.
Good Job.
We move forward together.
You're against 535 people in Congress doing it, but in favor of millions of government employees all across the country doing it. Sure, makes sense. LOL.
If you want government returned to the people, smarten and oppose government unions.
The problem with democracy is that it is doomed once the people discover that they can vote themselves money (- Tocqueville).
Once we become dependent on politicians for everything in our lives (including health care) then we become slaves, forced to vote for them in spite of their actions. Just ask the gun-owning union worker forced to vote Democrat, or the Quaker aerospace engineer forced to vote Republican.
"Democracy is dead, with The Return of the King" (me)
So the people expressing their will through the government is somehow evil, but empolyers using ecomonic power is just fine with you, I get it you long for the time of the King when evryone knew where they stood the day they were born, so much less messy that way right?
Rule by a Benevolent Dictator is not always a bad system (just most of the time), that is why people living under Monarchies often prayed for "The Good King". It was more of a hope than a prayer.
That said democracy, with all its wart’s, is a more reliable an equitable system. In a democracy the people should determine the limits of Gov intrusion in their lives; not the other way round. Gov is not evil in the same way that a cobra is not evil. That does not mean that it is not dangerous and bears close full watch.
As long as we let markets be as free as possible, corporations, including your local diner, will be forced to serve the consumer. Those with the best products and services at the highest value will win.
Gov has an oversight role that must prevent corps from breaking the law, but collusion between Gov and corps is particularly dangerous.
We should be wary of Gov favoring one industry over another. The Gov may award business to private industry, but it must do this on a best-offer basis. This is risky because the entity charged with oversight has also the power to make awards. The temptation for graft is overwhelming.
I remember when Bush said "as long as I get to be King" or something to that affect, there have always been those who would prefer the order of a ruling class, the GOP and the 1% are very near that now, OWS is maybe the last chance we will have for democracy in America, seems to be doing OK in Europe though, so in time their freedom will cause them to surpass us by so much, America won't really matter that much, that is of course if the GOP and the 1% keep "winning"
good job in your comment of protecting the interest of the 1%
Who owns most of the corporations in America, the 1 % or the 99%? (the 99 % own 65% of everything in the US)
The problem is not the corps and it is not the Gov. The people in charge of those institutions just do what is natural for them to do. They pursue self-interest.
The problem is that many of the people in the US and much of the developed world have waning character traits like:
Stomach for risk
Self-reliance
Accountability
Desire to ease human suffering
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
it's above basic needs/concertration that matters, power held by one or a few, ie BofDs, when a few become so wealthy their voice drowns out all others the demoracy dies
People are not equal. That is just a fact. Some people are short some are tall, some are born with rich parents and some are born in a slum. Some folks are really smart and some can make music come from a violin that will make you cry.
A lot of what I read in this forum is about why we should fight against one group of people or another because they are different or believe something different than we do. But I have never heard anyone say they hate someone because they have a great talent for playing the violin. Why then do we hate someone because they have a great talent for making money?
I agree with you that power comes from money, and the more power that you have the more influence you will have with many things including Gov.
What can or should be done about this? Take money from the rich and make them not-so-rich? Write laws restricting the how the rich spend their money (campaign ads)? Or reduce the power that the Gov has over our lives so that the influence of the rich on Gov has little effect.
No people are not equal, nobody is suggesting that they are or that we should have equal outcomes, but the constitution is not a sucide pact either, no reason at all we should not put laws in place to keep anyone from becoming so wealthy their will rules over all others.
It has gone way beyond the suggestion stage. There are numerous Gov policies in place today that are designed to produce equal outcomes, many of them discriminate based on age, race, and gender.
Instead taking money from the rich why not punish the politicians that fail to execute their sworn duty to promote policies that favor their constituents?
Which of those make me equal to Bill Gates?
Like many Gov policies they are not particularly effective.
I agree with you on unversity admission, daghters getting in because mom went there has got to be put to an end!
I agree with you about nepotism in university admission for schools that receive public funding. It should be banned along with all other discriminatory practices. (And probably will soon be banned by the Supreme Court).
While many discriminatory public polices affect relatively few individuals the damage to the Nation is large.
The policies cause resentment, drive wedges and between people, create doubt about the credentials folks that truly earned the things that they achieved, and reinforces stereotypes and bigotry. On top of that there is little evidence that the polices have done much to help (and may have actually hurt) those targeted.
http://www.adversity.net/Sander/RHS_main_frame.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973025,00.html
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_288430.html
http://theblacksentinel.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/affirmative-action-hurts-people/
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21NVTurnerHBCU803.html
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20071
Guess what I looked them all over, and good news!
They are not designed to create equal outcomes, they are designed to create equal opportunity, whew thank goodness we got that straighten out!
So it is ok to discriminate against someone for admission to university based on the color of their skin?
Is it ok to deny a city contract to someone because of their gender?
Is it ok for the Gov to place a pass-thru contract with an indian tribe for an armored personnel carrier at an extra 20% of the tax payers money? No value added just another $ 4 million doled out based on ethnicity.
Is it ok to punish the daughter for the sins of the mother?
We should flat out reject government favoring one industry over another. GM should have been reorganized under bankruptcy laws, not at King Obama's order. Solyndra and the half dozen other green initiatives that have gone bankrupt under Obama, should never have received a penny from taxpayers. Their is no provision in our constitution for Obamacare, and Obama and all the leftist backers that rammed this through without ever reading it are tyrants that seek to control all aspects of our lives. The way to make healthcare more affordable is to change the existing laws, like the ability to purchase insurance across state lines, remove certain coverages that we are forced to pay for now, like pregnancy coverage for people past child bearing age. Tort reform, that is limiting lawsuits, etc.
Conventional wisdom has it that yesterday the justices voted down the ACA.
Does it trouble you that the un-elected, for-life-tenured Supreme Court has so much power?
there are nine
There are nine but it looks like the decision on the ACA comes down to one man. That is a lot of power for a person that answers to no one; not unlike a King.
reaching
Maybe it would be better if decisions by the supreme court required a super majority; say 7 to 2. This would force them to a consensus .
And why 9?
9 may have been the right number in 1787 when there were 2.5 million Americans. If we scale by population there should be 1080 justices today.
9 is a number that we can easily keep track of
Do you think that we should vote for them, or should they be appointed?
doesn't mater
the important bit is they can not be removed by political sway
It is true when a controversial decision comes down to a 5-4 vote, in essence, one person can change the direction of our country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, and hopefully, the vote will correctly show this. What these lawmakers should have been doing, is working to amend the constitution. They are all afraid to do this now. They are spineless whimps, choosing the courts to make law, rather then honoring our system.
Well maybe there is some wisdom in making the court a for-life position. They do not fear the next election and can focus on their work.
Maybe direct election rather than appointment would be a better approach. Right now the Executive branch has a lot more power than originally intended because of the ability to appoint judges.
Some states have elected judges and it does not seem to be a big problem.
Kegan helped pen the bill. She should in no way have been allowed the privilege to vote on it. Unprecedented.
When activist judges are appointed, like Kegan, that helped pen the law, and do not recuse themselves from the decision, yes, that scares the hell out of me. These nine justices have one job, and one job only: defend our constitution to the absolute letter, and interpret it as the writers and amenders intended.
In 1972 a vote by three people on the Supreme Court sealed the fate of nearly 50 million human beings. That's a lot of power.
What are you referring to?
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h2603.html
The vote was in 1972; the ruling was released in Jan, '73.
I see. Yes it was a very unfortunate ruling for the utterly defenseless. Perhaps Almighty God is turning his back on our nation for that one.
threat them better
Treating people better is just one of the ways that great companies attract and retain great employees. Another one is health insurance.
I would rather see a system that does not lock people into taking a job because they need health insurance.
I have a question for you.
Why since 1950 has the price of a TV dropped by 300 times while increasing in quality and performance, while the price of medical care has gone up 300 times?
http://www.theawl.com/2011/11/how-much-more-do-televisions-cost-today
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/02_NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.asp
really are you that stupid, or are you just bring in useless trivial that has to do with tech and manual labor, the differences between the two industries is huge, of course your exampl;e is a lie, why not use the costs of a computer instead, does anybody have a guess? and getting a tooth pulled today does not cost 300 times as much, but out doctors can do things they couldn't then and you know that,what is your point in being here?
I agree with you that the variety of medical care has increased, but the efficacy has only marginally improved; and in some cases, improved not at all. While the efficacy of a thing like a TV has improved dramatically.
There are a number of ways of measuring efficacy. One way would be life expectancy. It has only gone up by 11% since 1950 while medical costs have gone up 300%.
Let’s take your dental example. The cost of a tooth extraction in 1950 was $6 ($ 57.37 inflation adjusted) today it is $300. That is a 422% increase.
What do you recon is driving the increase in medical costs?
BTW, can we live without the insults?
I don't know where your getting your teeth pulled but they are overcharging
The range in the US seems to be a low of $ 175 to a high of $ 450. $300 is a rough median.
Why has the price not dropped as do most things when they reach the commodity stage of the product life cycle?
http://www.topdentists.com/learn/teeth-extraction/tooth-extraction-prices/
How much as the price of getting your lawn mowed dropped should be about a quater by your logic.
When I was a kid I got $2 for cutting the grass ($ 14.45 in today's $). Today I pay a pro $20 for a lawn twice the size and they also edge, weed-wack, and pick up the clippings. So yes the price today is nearly half what I charged.
What are we going to do about the falling cost of labor?
At this rate the nation will be in complete ruin within a decade!
The reason that the cost of cutting lawns has dropped is not the falling cost of labor, it is technical innovation. What used to take me an hour with a push mower can now be done in 15 min with a Commercial Stand-up Great Dane. The driver does not get as tired as I did walking and can cut 10x my capacity.
Hey what do you think maybe I should do a post on wages and the cost of a CEO in 1950 and wages and the cost of a CEO today, maybe we would learn if there has been an overall trend indicating that the system is unbalanced or has it been sort of up one year for wages another for CEO pay the way a balanced system would work, maybe we would find out if the system really is a balance market driven system, or has it been rigged to favor one side over the other.
Very good and sporting of you factsrfun.
Why I bet something like that could show positively that the movements against corruption and greed are way off base.
Imagine if it were to show that executive compensation went up in equal response to profits and then fell to mirror diminishing returns.
Huh. I guess that would just blow us all out of the water.
Just imagine then how much worse it would be for the movements against corruption and greed if at the same time it should show an equal growth for the basic worker in comparison to the executive's growth. That would really fry us good.
Huh. Wonder why they have never burned us this way with straight facts.
CEOs are like baseball players, if they produce they are worth every penny.
The ones that turn out to be duds are just living off the bet made by the owners. I don't begrudge anybody for winning the lottery. Most of the tooth gnashing about compensation for the CEOs of failed businesses is just envy; envy that they did not get a deal like that.
1sealyon
BLOWCHUNKS
DanielBarton
Dell
Demian
F350
Farmerbrown
Ironboltbruce
Jph
MsStacy
Rebdem
RedJazz43
VantagePoint250624
Oh one profession taken care of 999,999 to go what up with all of those?
Earlier you mentioned one of my former Heroes , Bill Gates.
That one man has done more for humanity than the collective efforts of 95% of US Presidents and the last 20 Nobel Peace Prize winners. What Gates created was a world-wide boost in the individual productivity that is on an historical par with the invention of language, engineered use of fire, and the domestication of animals.
People gained as much of a boost in earning power as the ditch-digger got when he traded his shovel for a back-hoe.
Do you want to know how to help the 999,999 other professions? Spend every spare nickel we have on education in math and science, and get the Gov out of the way of the innovators of the future.
Do you know why Bill Gates is my former hero?
ok please tell how much did an MRI cost in 1950, i can't find that, so I can check it against today's cost,
(let's pretent your for real)
BTW I think that your MRI example is an excellent clue to one of the problems.
When the MRI was developed the inventors dubbed it Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Being engineers and all it was the most descriptive title. From the word nuclear some people wrongly assumed that the procedure involved dangerous particle radiation and were afraid of it. To allay fears the manufactures began a rush PR campaign and changed the name.
We have as a society become so risk averse that treatments and medications have become incredibly expensive. In large part due to fear of litigation extensive testing and trials are now standard regardless of their effectiveness or relevance.
Some treatments never make it to the folks that need them because we live in fear of the risk.
http://www.spine-health.com/forum/pain-medications/mri-used-be-mnr-nuclear-magnetic-resonance
For that matter what are we paying to have our companies ran these days compared to back then? about 30 times as much i think looks like we could be saving in a lot of places.
I agree with you that the variety of medical care has increased (e.g. the MRI), but the efficacy has only marginally improved; and in some cases, improved not at all. If pulling teeth followed normal product life cycles the price should be way down by now. Why is it 4x higher than in 1950?
How do you measure the improvement in public health and the quality of life relative to the innovation and cost increase? How well are we spending our health care $?
It seems to me that this is an important piece of data since about 1/5 of GDP is spent on this issue.
What do you suspect are the top 3 cost drivers in health care today?
So how amny lives could we have saved with the money that was spent on Cheny's heart transplant? Is that where your going? I think maybe a little les for bombs and a little more for healthcare, you forgot to mention how much more we spend for a plane these days.
The entire defense budget is pretty small compared to the cost of health care ($ 2.5 trillion compared to $0.5 trillion).
Some would argue that money spent by the US on defense has saved hundreds of millions of lives.
http://voices.yahoo.com/article/9216583/nuclear-weapons-ironic-peace-comes-having-10616185.html
I agree healthcare would be much cheaper under a single payer system, how can we get there?
The main problem with single payer is that it is a monopoly on the demand side. The Gov will be able to set the price. What usually happens when the Gov puts a cap on price is that the supply dries up.
Brits and Candians seem to like it fine in spite of your articales, pointing out that life is not perfect.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/30/healthcare-america-live-q-and-a
Some Canadians seem to like US healthcare.
http://www.freep.com/article/20090820/BUSINESS06/908200420/Canadians-visit-U-S-get-health-care
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2%80%99-remedy-for-health-care-go-to-america/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-681801.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/24/EDVV1C6HTS.DTL
Suppy seems fine in places where they have single payer, how do you explain that?
You mean places like UK?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/251988.stm
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cs08.pdf
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/06/health.politics
http://www.pri.org/stories/health/how-the-uk-rations-health-care.html
http://rationinghealth.org/united-kingdom-rationing-by-cost
I thought the main problem was cost?
Would you make up your mind please?
The main problem with insurance is that it drives up the cost. Single payer (or demand monopoly) shuts off the supply, like rent control in NYC.
??
drugs, surgery & examinations
I was surprised to learn that drugs are only 10 % of the total healthcare expenditure. Surgery & examinations are less than 1/4 of the cost. The biggest chunk is the cost of going to the hospital.
As far as cost increase drivers one of the biggest is the aging US population. Nearly 1/3 of the healthcare $ are spent on the last year of life.
http://open.salon.com/blog/amytuteurmd/2010/04/30/we_cant_cure_death_no_matter_how_much_we_spend
http://www.wnet.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html
http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issue-Modules/US-Health-Care-Costs/Background-Brief.aspx
medical imagining is over priced ?
The price of an average MRI last year was $ 2549. Just the procedure, not including the Dr. fee for reading the image.
The TSA imaged 11 million air travelers last year? Do you think the TSA spent $ 28 billion on scans (Total TSA budget: $ 8.1 billion)?
http://www.comparemricost.com/
Actually pure chance has a lot to do with why we have the health care system we have. The 1942 Stabilization Act tried to prevent inflation by freezing wages. It made it illegal for companies to offer higher pay to attract wartime workers. They started using benefits and that gave a start to employer provided health insurance. People now equate insurance as somehow meaning free.
I agree. If people view a thing as free they discount the value.
Also, insurance drives up the cost because people will use the service without regard for necessity, and often select the most expensive alternatives. There is no incentive for the consumer to shop for a lower price or a service better suited to their need.
Another problem is the barriers to entry into the medical and dental professions.
I really don't see a single-payer health care system undermining the American ideals. Far worse legislation has been passed in the name of national security.
What about the compromise approach?
The catastrophic insurance could be single-payer, or better yet run by a private non-profit. It would minimize Gov involvement and help push costs down. If they do a crappy job, fire them an hire another company. It is difficult to fire the Gov.
I would do it the other way around: Government provides basic care as single payer, the really expensive stuff is left to private insurance (no mandate) until you're old enough for government coverage. This has a number of advantages, but I don't have the time to go into them. Some advantages: It would boost the number of basic care practitioners. People would be getting the basic care they need to avoid a lot of the expensive treatments for diseases in advanced stages. Early treatment will bring overall costs down. Removes insurance profits for the most basic treatment.
you make sense, as a theory why not have a single payer, and every couple of years run a poll, to see what people want covered and if they are willing to pay the tax to have it, and those that need more and can afford it let them have it, the rest of us get something at least
You could run a poll or run the numbers. I like the idea that free basic health care will allow parents to get advice like: Your kid is eating too much and needs to eat more sensible food or he'll be diabetic by the age of eleven. We need that kind of thing.
without money one can't afford the health tax
The Nation has plenty of money, we are just not using it very effectively now. There is a problem in our country where the leader can say “Let’s go to war” and a lot of people do like killing people, so off we go to war, but he doesn’t have to say how he will pay for it. Whenever we do something that will actually make the country better like treat illness, we “have to pay for it” so only when we are doing good stuff do we have to talk about the costs, it does mess us up a bit in the long run.
We dont have any money thats actually the biggest problem people have with this bill is the fact we have no money. We are in the hole so bad right now that its going to collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p0RkWqyn1y4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=R0LOXUEsBlI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID4xay5RITY&feature=relmfu
you can do nothing to fix the problem if you don't look at how you got there
in the summer of 2001 you couldn't trun on a TV without hearing a Republican talking about how Washington was taking in too much money, let's imagine the debt was your debt, the very first year you start to pay some down on your creidit card you quit your job for a lower paying one because you were "taking in too much money" so that now you could no longer pay the bills, then let's say your car breaks down and you have to buy a new one but fortunally it happens before you left your good paying job, that your mom wants you to keep, but you quit your job anyway, then ten years later your debt is getting out of hand, you still won't take that harder good paying job, but you blame your mother for all the debt
i don't get what your referencing this to at all
i guess what I'm saying is that it does matter what we do, if we don't get the Republicans out of office they will just mess it up.
And yet if only we had not passed the Bush tax cut the debt would be paid off entirely by now:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/bush-tax-cut-deficit/
can i see some hard evidence about that and not an occupy post
I'll answer your questions about the post there so we don't have to redo it all please
If you look you can find the transcript, I just remember the testomony I watched it live.
Well the cost of basic care will go up if it is covered by insurance. Plenty of evidence for this by both private and public insurers. If people have to pay for basic care out-of-pocket it would help drive the cost down (see laser eye surgery: http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1#.T3XoGzGPWFg).
Out-of-pocket pay also encourages healthier life styles. If I know that I have to pay for that blood pressure medicine I will be more inclined to eat better and give up cigarettes. Offer discounts on life insurance and medication for preventive care and screening tests.
Those anecdotal stories are not about basic care or even about how out-of-pocket is driving lower costs. I, myself went to a Walmart QuickDoc once. Not because my choice made the low cost option available, but because the low cost option was already made available. And who is more likely to make a low cost option available? The government or the private sector?
Why did Wal-Mart offer the lower price? Was it competition, or just their good nature for which Wal-Mart is so famous?
In the face of competition the private sector is far more likely to offer a lower price. The better question to ask is what incentive does the Gov (or any monopoly) ever have to offer a lower price, improved quality and reliability, or better service?
Similarly, why did Apple invent the Iphone? Was it some public service not-for-profit that brought us all they've invented? It was their motive to make better lives for themselves as workers and shareholders by creating something that other people wanted. Because if they didn't, they'd fail and not have the better lives they wanted. Just like Wal-mart and countless other places.
Truly, we need to teach basic economics maybe starting in junior high. Maybe with a refresher course before people are allowed to vote.
Have you read this one yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/books/review/civilization-the-west-and-the-rest-by-niall-ferguson-book-review.html?pagewanted=all
That's excellent. It really should be a core of what we learn about. We can both observe how little the occutards understand.
Here's another idea: I spend hours and hundreds of dollar just preparing my taxes. I also spend months earning the money to pay them. If you pay nothing, out of respect for your fellow citizens that do pay and under perhaps the delusion that one day some of these people will join them, a 3-hour on-line course should be required. It would cover areas like economics, civics and what your fellow citizens pay to keep the government going. It might also cover topics like how being a single parent contributes to poverty and how the shit you get from government, turns out, isn't really free.
Laser eye surgery is hardy an anecdote. 12 million people have had the procedure in the US alone. The current rate is 4 million a year. It is a great lesson in how lack of insurance drives down the price.
When the Gov , or a business for that matter, is the sole source of a good or service the consumer gets hurt. The resulting lack of competition, like public schools, degrades the product .Lack of competition results in high prices, low quality, and poor service.
My town used to have the worst trash pick-up service you can imagine. It was expensive, they frequently did not show up and when they did rubbish and crushed trash cans lined the streets in the wake of their service.
8 years ago the city fired the union workers and hired a private hauler. The cost went down, the people are actually nice to us, they put the cans up on the sidewalk after they are emptied, and I swear that if I cut up an automobile and put it out front they would figure a way to get it in that truck. The workers make more than the union guys did (mainly because three of them do the work of six union guys). And this is all because unlike the guys employed by the city they know that if they do a lousy job the city just fires the contractor and finds a better service.
Gov has an appropriate oversight role but should stay out of the business of business.
Well put. Healthcare inflation is being caused by detachment from costs, too much use of insurance and too much indiscriminate government money. When people don't care about cost at point of service, providers have more room to increase prices. It really isn't that complicated. No one should get a medical service while being in the position of not caring what it costs.
We also hinder competition with 50 state regulation. You can travel across borders. You can buy things across borders and bring them home. But it's illegal to buy an insurance policy from another state. That's nuts. It's another example of government making things worse.
Great post.
What is the history behind the inter-state insurance ban? Whose idea was that?
Not sure. I think we just grew up with it. Each state was just doing its own thing.
They could still regulate state-by-state if they liked, but they should standardize things so that you can buy cross-border. It's like making GM build cars in each state. Just moving can cause an interruption in insurance and that's 100% government created.
Leftists have no concept of even the basics of inflation. When someone else gets the bill, look for inflation.
That is not the current reality. People are overweight and diabetic without basic care provided by the government. I will check out your links, however.
Hear, Hear!
World Solidarity!
The insurance industry (which supported the Affordable Care Act because in meant big cake for them) will fight this tooth and nail. It could be eased in slowly by pulling particular treatments and services from their grip. These cases could then be held up as examples of industry cost reductions. That will make it easier to pull more pieces away from the insurance companies.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Perhaps it is because the government is trying to fund a hyperinflated, inefficient system. What needs to be done instead is to streamline the system, make it more efficient, then have government contemplate funding. With a $15 trillion dollar debt, we simply cannot afford it.
The costs are covered in the legislation.
I think the reason is fairly simple: it isn't Constitutional or moral.
The Republicans are not denying anyone healthcare. Obamas new Obamacare is unconstitutional, it forces people to by it. Free universal healthcare is also why Europe is having some of the problems in their economies. People don't deserve to have things handed to them. Unless they are truly disabled, like a soldier who returns from Afghanistan without his legs or the very elderly. Those are the people who need help.
So you believe in a system where some capitalist is able to profit off your illness? How sick is that?
Why would anyone be interested in curing your illness if they can't profit from it? Whether it's doctors, nurses or insurance companies, they ought to have something in it for them too. Sure, health care costs are sky high but to say that there should be no profit motive is preposterous.
So you believe in a system where you get surgery and are immediately sent home and can possibly be injured worse. A capitalist isn't profiting off my illness, if anything they are loose g money by keeping me in the hospital for a week to recover.
I have no idea where you get your ideas. I believe in an America that is mature enough and responsible enough to realize that it's time to ditch the amoral, profit-driven health care system in favor of a more efficient, result driven, single payer system. We just need the troglodytes and profiteers to get out of the way.
Which Obamacare is none of.
(R)epelican'ts stand by your "right" to go bankrupt trying to pay for health care, and the insurance and health care(sic) corporations "right" to bankrupt you!
Other than that? They don't give a shit.
Wait so are you agreeing with me or not?
I don't think so. Whatever made you think that?
Sounded like something off of FLAKESnews.
Lots of disjointed opinion.
Then exactly what do you mean by you're comment, do you think we should. Have Obamacare?
It's the first step to some form of national health care.
Not to take that step is perilous. The current business model is unsustainable, and corporations know that.
They are currently too stupid to come up with a new paradigm.
So this is what we get, until they do.
Again, national free healthcare doesn't work, it costs you more money. With Obamacare you are forced to buy it, it would be against federal law not to. Besides Europes healthcare sucks, and Obamacare is a complete knockoff of it. It is very simple.
You know? This is getting tiresome. It's repeat of what's already been said and handled umpteen times.
I never called for free care, I called for a national system.
I have health care, I'm not forced to buy it.
If they force it? It sure as hell isn't the worse thing they do that's against one law or another.
Europeans like it. You're info is flawed.
It's not a knock off. Europe doesn't deal with 100s of predatory health corporations, operating a failed business model.
It's more complicated than yu know.
Not it really is a knock off, it prioritizes people on age and recovery. If you are older you won't stay in the hospital as long as say someone who is 23. Health Care should be controlled by the states and not the government. The Europeans defiantly do not like it because I know several people from Negland and they hate the healthcare. It defiantly would be one of the worst laws they would break, it is a clear violation of the constitution.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Yup that is basically it, receiving kidney surgery and immediately being sent home just to have the wound reopen and almost die because of poor and dieing European Big government controlled healthcare plan, state controlled and not big government. Said it before and I'll say it now. If you have a better p,an I would love to hear it.
That's all you do is , rinse, lather, repeat.
I'm not in a position to form a new medical paradigm.
What I do know, is that Obama care, so far, is better that what went before.
While we have conflicting points of view all you guys say over and over is to stop the 1% and greed. So both keep repeating. But do you really want to be forced to buy healthcare. To be prioritized on you're recovery ability. If so just say so and I will stop.
I'm forced to buy it anyway. I'm alive.
Not exactly. This is fascism 101. Its the exact opposite thing he promised.
Does nothing to control costs, just helps out the insurance companies.
Total sell out, And you would have to be stupid to think this is anything but corportism.
You are not forced to buy it, you choose to
No one is denying anyone healthcare. Healthcare costs money. People just need to pay their bill. Is that too much to ask?
What if they've paid their insurance bill and get dropped anyway? Nothing is simple. Everything costs money: Police, roads, bridges, wars...what matters is how We the People want our tax money spent.
If and when Obama care kicks in, it's supposed to lower insurance premiums, right? If that really does occur, will the insurance companies make less profit? Will charges and service fees become more stabile? I read that we're not graduating enough new medical doctors and there will be a big shortage in the near future. Managed healthcare has supposedly been responsible for much of the decline in the numbers of pre-med students. There's supposedly not enough income in medicine for the numbers of years of education required. If the earnings rate flattens or even becomes less as a result of universal healthcare coverage, this situation would become even worse, I would think. Those who are smart enough to become doctors are and would continue going into other, more lucrative fields. This could become a very great problem, as it regards our being able to get into see a doctor in a timely manner. It sounds like such a noble idea, though. Very appealing.
Actually what will happen without a fix is that insurance premiums/health care costs will continue to increase so that only the sick who can afford it will remain in the pool. This will put an even greater burden on insurance companies, who, in turn, will raise their premiums and the number of uninsured will increase profoundly. As for insurance profits, the law contains a stipulation that 80% of premiums must be used for actual health care, so they are allowed a fixed profit of 20% only.
Thanks for the info
Welcome. So, is that Dreadnaught as in DOW?
Yes. Be a dreadnaught
Give me some credit, I figured out the be-a part.
lol
Since the profit rate industry wide in 2008/2009 was less than 4%, what exactly does allowing a "fixed profit of 20%" mean? Does it mean 20% BEFORE salaries and bonuses are paid out (because that 4% profit rate for the industry was AFTER those salaries and bonuses)? Because if it doesn't than it was a meaningless inclusion in the law and obviously for political reasons only.
yeah, maybe, but I doubt it. What I would view as the much greater concern is the people in America who cannot afford healthcare.
We already are paying for uninsuered people through increased charges to those who have insurance, right? That's what I read somewhere. Those Explanations Of Benefits that the insurance providers send after I've received a medical service - on them there are amounts charged by the provider, amount the insurance company paid to the provider and the amount of the charge not paid. The amount charged by the provider is always a good deal higher than the amount paid. I heard it's done that way so that when provider charges are reviewed by the state's regulatory agency, the higher amounts are figured into what insurers must reimburse in the future. I think that recalculation is probably done on an annual basis, maybe? So that will affect premiums, naturally, I should think.
Could it be that (R)epelican'ts suffer the same lack of effective leadership that corporations suffer from?
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/lack-of-leadership-at-the-top-of-corporate-ladder/
Good Post
Too bad you're the only one who read it........:)
Just look at CEO pay. When leadership is all about money you get bubbles and crashes and fraud galore.
Saw an article recently, where one CEO of big medical insurance company got over $100,000,000/yr.
And people wonder why their premiums keep going up...
Because of the scam conducted by the insurance/medical complex, people are suffering and dying. It is a crime against humanity, and should be dealt with as such.
No one wants OscummerCare
Q: Why Do Republicans Deny We the People Health Care?
A: Why Do Morons Continue To Believe There Is A Difference Between Democrats and Republicans When They Both Answer To The Same Corporate Masters?
Next Question?
The Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause are the same too, the same as your logic.
[Removed]
My guess is that they figured out, long ago, that most Americans really don't care what DC does as long as there are millions of nu-neccessary federal jobs, billions being doled as mere trinkets via welfare for poor, awesome demonstrations that DC is indeed in control of every aspect of citizens lives........ and so on.
You bi-party meat puppets want bigger and more government........ you're getting it.
Too bad about all the corruption which means only money has any real voice in the Demoncracy.
Thanks for that cynical tirade. Be even better if you offered some constructive answers.
[Removed]
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy): a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
No one is talking about doing away with your precious capitalism. An efficient universal healthcare system would benefit everybody. There's ample proof of that. But Republicans will deny even the hardest scientific evidence if it means they have to part with a buck.
Both sides have been on spending frenzies for likely longer than you've been alive! They (D's and R's alike) still are. They're just not spending any on you.
You also know almost everyone of the DC clan is uber-wealthy hooked up with fantastic benefits, right?
There is ample proof that the Govt. can't do very many things efficiently or effectively. You've been indoctrinated by fallacious Democrat propaganda and you don't understand the real agenda behind Obamacare. Hint,healthcare has nothing to do with it.
And you're completely free of the Republican mind-warping sociopathic ideology? Maybe you should take a look at your own fallacious propaganda. You might see the agenda of greed and tyranny behind it.
More deflection and projection with no comprehension,but only ignorant and blind truth rejection.
The same could be said of you. Only, in your case, it's true.
Come on,own it. You are completely deflecting,you are clueless or actually don't care how sinister the Obamacare agenda is. Either way it's going down and you can cry yourself a river. I don't care.
When people start talking about sinister agendas I usually assume they haven't taken their meds. Let me guess: you're a birther too.
Deflection,projection.
More like inspection and rejection.
I hope this guy is a troll
dejection injection interception
tion tion tion
I think F350 was trying to be poetic or maybe it's a sing-song rapper thing. I can see him with the gold chains and sunglasses, "Blind" tattooed on the knuckles of one hand and "Truth" on the other. LoL.
inception
http://www.morewords.com/ends-with/tion/
Here,now go knock your self out,.....please.
The post office is GREAT example how the Government can do some things right. Have you experienced UPS's growing shipping charge compared to USPS? The world is not always so black & white. You don't have all the answers to everything. You are not a god, so why don't you be a little more tolerant to ideas that you might not agree with. Truth is usually in the middle of the extremes making both polarized sides wrong. Truth can also be two opposing sides in the form of a paradox. In others words lighten up and be more opened minded. There is obviously some thing wrong with the world & it all can't be Obama's fault.
The Post Office is going bankrupt and cutting back on services while always raising their prices. What were you saying?
Yeah, but they kept the fees way down when compared to others & have been operational much longer. Just because gov does not want to give the money they need to work now does not mean that they did not work for many decades. Don't throw the child out with the bath water. Good gov works & bad gov does not. The post office has worked under good gov.
It's only still in biz because it has access to unlimited taxpayers funding. In the Private Sector it would have filed for Bankruptcy or been bailed out by the Govt.
Let's see how pro BIG GOVT. you are during the next Republican Administration. My guess is you won't be.
Liberals only want more Govt when it is run by the Dems.
Bush and his (R)epelican't cohorts assured this on his way out the door, with the Worlds economy crashing all around us.
It just proves how evil Bush and Co. really are.
can i have another hint?
There is?? Oh yeah...(R)epelican'ts!! Highly inefficient.
As to Obamacare?
Read up on some reality.
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/02/health-care-myths-and-realties/
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/the-end-of-health-insurance-as-we-know-it/
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/ripple-effect-of-cost-shifting-uncompensated-medical-care/
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/lack-of-leadership-at-the-top-of-corporate-ladder/
http://wendellpotter.com/2012/03/slogans-versus-substance-in-the-battle-over-obamacares-future/
Ummm.....republicans had nothing to do with Obamacare. I'm not surprised you are trying to blame them but this whole mess is a democrat mess.
Ever hear of a guy running for office.......... oh what was his name..... ah yes - Mitten and mitten care when he was Governor? Template said to have been used for Obama care.
Exactly. But I don't think any but 1 Republican in Mass. voted for it. See my post above. The mandate concept was developed by the Heritage Foundation in 1993, as an alternative to the Clinton Healthcare Plan. There were mulitiple pieces of Republican legislation that were written based on the mandate concept at the time. But NOW they don't like it anymore. Go figure. 50 million shades of crazy. : )
Would have been a stellar concept except Mitten didn't introduce it. Now they are pouting.
It really is beyond absurd.
in 93 they were afraid we would get single payer through, it was their way of killing that
Even still, I don't know why, from a PR standpoint, the Dems were not out there more forcefully pointing out this hypocrisy. The mandate is their thing! Did I just miss that??
Oh they say it all the time, the right is not convenced by such things, they just see it as a win and keep pulling right, they said it more a couple of years ago, it's so cute really when they act like they are dealing with people instead of mad dogs, sorry but I've been at it a while.
The Dems are not loyal like the republicans. The Dems are also filled with republican spies. Does it really matter when they are all in the corporate pocket?
lol. Yeah, I'd say the Repubs are far more loyal to their masters. The Dems still have a modicum of conscience left.
the healthcare in mass. is a state program , not a federal mandate.
[Removed]
Ummmm.... the individual mandate dates back to 1989, The Heritage Foundation. I believe thats a Right Wing group, no?
So yeah, the Republicans had a little something to do with it. It was their own ideas that the plan was based on. Silly goose.
[Removed]
What does that have to do with the issue at hand?
Can you read English? Re-read my words. You said the Republicans had nothing to do with the Affordable Care Act. I said they did. The mandate is a Republican concept.
Do you drink and forum at the same time?
Okay, one more time little girl. They had nothing to do with the passage of the bill that is before the Supreme Court right now. You need to read the OP. then connect it with my OP that referred to the OP.
lol. I'm just sayin' - the mandate was their idea. Beats me why they didn't vote for it. It was their idea. : )
I guess in the same way a homeowner denies a burgler his jewelry....
Nice try.
Nice try at what? How is it different?
Really, you can say that about any tax. Obviously, a burglar doesn't steal your jewelry and then repave your driveway with it or finance your local police and fire departments. These are obvious examples of how it is different and most educated people know this stuff.
Don't let the propaganda fool you. The gov and insurance companies do the same job. You pay people to do the work either way. Just insurance companies charge 30% and more for doing the same job. And when they terminate your policy then the government picks up the pieces.
Insurance companies reward health care for limiting health care. Government does not.
It is the same as our army being replaced with mercenaries. Oh wait they are. Blackwater
Governments never limit health care to anyone? What about those deemed less "valuable" to society, such as the elderly? See also: Britain.