55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 09:45 am
@Foxfyre,
Considering that we are seeing reports in news sources, and not watching actual votes being made or bills being signed - I'm not so sure I would call the Public Option dead yet.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 09:49 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Well for sure Obama is in a tight spot. He can either enrage the large part of freedom loving Americans who don't want socialism, including socialized medicine, or he can enrage the far left radical loonies of his party that he depends on to keep him in office. Tough choice.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 09:50 am
@Cycloptichorn,
They love to arrive at conclusions before the legislation is even finished! It still hasn't come out of the house and senate committees yet which will require compromising both bills to arrive at a final bill before it's presented to Obama.

They talk about failure before anything is finished.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 09:52 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Well for sure Obama is in a tight spot. He can either enrage the large part of freedom loving Americans who don't want socialism, including socialized medicine, or he can enrage the far left radical loonies of his party that he depends on to keep him in office. Tough choice.


Don't want 'socialized medicine?' Of course they do! Ask these same folks how they feel about Medicare and you will see large approval ratings. Opposition to Obama and the Dems on this issue has as much to do with partisanship as it does Health Care itself, if not far more.

I love your constructions: 'freedom-loving' people vs. 'far-left loonies.' How about I just re-write that, 'Caring people' on the left vs. 'racist, repressive assholes' on the right? Hard to take such constructions seriously, Fox.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:06 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Great approval ratings for Medicare? You're kidding of course. Approval ratings for a program that is threatening to bankrupt the nation in the near future? A program that was forced on the people and now can't be dismantled without causing extreme suffering?

Why in the world would anybody want to the put the entire healthcare system in that kind of bind? Put us into a system that then can't be undone? That is the desire of 'caring people'? Well if that's the case, give me practical and workable over 'caring' any day.

Just this week from Canada:

Quote:
SASKATOON " The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jbjzPEY0Y3bvRD335rGu_Z3KXoQw


Canada's population is slightly more than 10% of ours. They aren't advocating an American system, but if they are having so many problems on that small a scale, multiply that 10 times over to see the problems trying to put a population the size of ours under a system similar to that.

Something between 10 to 20% of the US population is currently on Medicare and the program is out of money and we are fast approaching a financial crisis on that one program alone. But those 'caring' folks on the Left want to put the remaining 80% at risk too.

Sorry, but to me that's looney.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:11 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Canada's population is slightly more than 10% of ours. They aren't advocating an American system, but if they are having so many problems on that small a scale, multiply that 10 times over to see the problems trying to put a population the size of ours under a system similar to that.

Something between 10 to 20% of the US population is currently on Medicare and the program is out of money and we are fast approaching a financial crisis on that one program alone. But those 'caring' folks on the Left want to put the remaining 80% at risk too.

Sorry, but to me that's looney.


You said, you were working in the insurance business, isn't it?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:12 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Not health insurance in any form. Strictly property, casualty, work comp, auto, and we have no personal investment in any insurance company. But the principle of insurance works the same no matter what the coverage. The insurance company must accurately assess the existing risk and structure premiums and coverage accordingly, or the insurance company will lose money.

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:18 am
@Foxfyre,
Oh, by the way:

Quote:
For the past two years, the successive presidents of the powerful Canadian Medical Association have hailed from private enterprise, physicians who operated lucrative private medical clinics and openly espoused the need for more private care in the country's publicly funded health-care system.

But Brian Day is back working as an orthopedic surgeon at Cambie Medical Surgery Centre in Vancouver and, on Wednesday, Robert Ouellet will return full time to running five private imaging clinics in suburban Montreal.

Stepping into the role of CMA president will be someone from a very different background: Anne Doig is a family physician in Saskatoon who has operated solely in the public system for more than three decades.

The assumption, therefore, is that Dr. Doig's views will be diametrically opposed to those of her outspoken predecessors, but she refuses to be pigeon-holed.

“If I say my views are not markedly different from my predecessors that will be the headline. If I say my views are markedly different, that will be the headline.

“Here's the headline I want to see: Let's stop looking at the private/public care issue as an either/or question. We have to improve patient care. Period.” [... ... ...]

Source

Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:20 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Great approval ratings for Medicare? You're kidding of course.


Actually, I am not kidding.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php

Quote:
Indeed, the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll found 62 percent of Americans expressing support for "having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans." Other pollsters describing the public option as "government administered" and "similar to Medicare" gauged even more positive reactions: 67 percent in a Kaiser Family Foundation poll in April and 72 percent in the most recent CBS News/New York Times poll.

So if Americans live in fear of government intrusion into health care, why does likening the public option to Medicare make reform more popular?

Consider some results obtained by the same Kaiser tracking poll. When asked how much they trust various health care players "to put your interests above their own," respondents rank doctors (78 percent trust "a lot" or "some") and nurses (74 percent) at the top of the list.

Among those insured through Medicare, however, "the Medicare program" (68 percent) scores nearly as high. Among those with private insurance, "your health insurance company" earns much less trust (48 percent).

Perhaps that result is just about perceptions of corporate interests and not about patient experience?


Quote:
Approval ratings for a program that is threatening to bankrupt the nation in the near future? A program that was forced on the people and now can't be dismantled without causing extreme suffering?


Dismantle it? Your political leaders and mine ALL support it. Nobody is dismantling medicare any time soon.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:22 am
@Walter Hinteler,
And your point is?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:24 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.



I should think that insurance companies don't loose their own money but that of their members. And when they do so, they demand more and more ...
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:29 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.



I should think that insurance companies don't loose their own money but that of their members. And when they do so, they demand more and more ...


Good point, Walter!
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:33 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.



I should think that insurance companies don't loose their own money but that of their members. And when they do so, they demand more and more ...


Not only that, but insurance companies also have another factor to consider - portfolios. When they use their cash reserves to invest, and then lose money on those investments... your premiums go up to cover the difference.

Great point, Walter.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:46 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

If the insurance company loses enough money, it goes bankrupt.
So does the government, but the government doesn't lose its own money. It loses ours, and has the power to demand more and more of it just the same.



I should think that insurance companies don't loose their own money but that of their members. And when they do so, they demand more and more ...


What members? Private insurance is private insurance. The insurance collects a fee (premium) in return for assuming an agreed portion of risk rather than the policy holder having to assume that risk himself. What I pay the insurance company becomes the insurance company's money. If I have no losses, it is theirs to do whatever they wish with it. If I do have a loss, the insurance company is obligated to pay whatever the agreed portion of that loss is even though it will far exceed the amount of premium paid.

If the insurance company 'demands' more premium than I feel is worth it to be relieved of whatever risk, I don't buy the insurance. So, the insurance company has to keep the premium low enough to be affordable and 'worth it' to the policy holder, and more especially low enough to compete with other insurance companies who also want my premium dollars. It is the dual factor of the maximum amount the market will bear and the competition between competing interests that keeps insurance as affordable as it is. If insurance became truly unaffordable, no insurance company could afford to offer it.

Also, if the government had stayed out of it altogether other than to implement practical tort reform to help insurance companies keep their risks manageable, insurance would be a far sight less costly than it is.

There is zero evidence that more government involvement in healthcare will be more cost effective overall.

Further, in order to stay in business, the insurance company has to hold a certain amount of premium money in reserve so that it will be available to pay out in the inevitable losses that will occur.

The government has shown no such discipline, but spends the money as fast as it comes in plus billions--currently trillions--more. If the insurance company is financially irresponsible it goes belly up. If the government is financially irresponsible it just demands more money from the people or goes further and further into debt which will handicap Americans for generations to come.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:48 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
If the insurance company 'demands' more premium than I feel is worth it to be relieved of whatever risk, I don't buy the insurance. So, the insurance company has to keep the premium low enough to be affordable and 'worth it' to the policy holder, and more especially low enough to compete with other insurance companies who also want my premium dollars.

That must be why insurance costs in the US are rising faster than inflation. The insurance companies are keeping their prices low.. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:48 am
@parados,
BUT IF the Republicans now run on a platform to impeach Obama, AND IF they obtain a two-thirds majority in the House in the 2010 election as a consequence, THEN when the Congress reconvenes in January 2011 with the Republican tw0-thirds majority, there will be enough votes in the House to impeach Obama.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:50 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

BUT IF the Republicans now run on a platform to impeach Obama, AND IF they obtain a two-thirds majority in the House in the 2010 election as a consequence, THEN when the Congress reconvenes in January 2011 with the Republican tw0-thirds majority, there will be enough votes in the House to impeach Obama.


Achieve a 2/3rds majority in the House? Are you smoking crack cocaine? They would have to win 100+ seats away from the Dems to do that, and that my friend is as ludicrous as any projection anyone has ever made in American politics, period.

Cycloptichorn
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:50 am
@ican711nm,
Thanks for forcing us back to reality, ican.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:53 am
@Foxfyre,
Quote:

If the insurance company 'demands' more premium than I feel is worth it to be relieved of whatever risk, I don't buy the insurance. So, the insurance company has to keep the premium low enough to be affordable and 'worth it' to the policy holder, and more especially low enough to compete with other insurance companies who also want my premium dollars. It is the dual factor of the maximum amount the market will bear and the competition between competing interests that keeps insurance as affordable as it is. If insurance became truly unaffordable, no insurance company could afford to offer it.


This is a little farcical, b/c it relies on the premise that people can just go out and shop for whatever insurance they like, at the drop of a hat. This simply isn't the case. Most of us who get our insurance through our employers can only change once a year, and most of the options presented are roughly the same price. Getting insurance outside of your employer is almost always much more expensive.

So, when the insurance companies continue to jack the rates up on clients, people don't just drop their insurance. What you describe isn't realistically reflected in people's lives. Instead, they pay the higher rates, out of fear of not having health insurance, and lack of options.

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:53 am
@wandeljw,
ican (as well as okie) likes to jerk off. They love to self mutilate (themselves), because it must bring them pleasure to forfeit their brains to BS. There's no other explanation.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 01/16/2025 at 05:07:22