There's no radical left in America.

We wouldn't need to know who "told" you this. I've tried to Google several different ways and cannot come up with that statistic. I'm not really always sold on statistics and how much will it cost the taxpayer if a single pay system were set up nationally? I could be in favor of a state or county system but for the fact that corruption and administrative errors likely occur more often in local than federal government. The HMO's are now highly regulated as far as Medicare. A case in point on my Medicare HMO, the eyedrops Patanol which work really great for my allergies are free.

0 Replies

Has anybody here ever heard of the "law of unintended consequences?" Such a law applies in so many ways when politicians start meddling with health care and trying to federalize it. Just one example is the prescription drug plan will in the long run screw things up in ways unforeseen by the do-gooders, which Bush bought into for this issue. So Bush pushed through a liberal idea. Funny thing, even the liberals oppose it though just because they don't like Bush.

0 Replies

That's because it is a gigantic drug corporate welfare handout scheme and doesn't save the consumer what they've been led to believe it will save. It could easily backfire on them. Not that they need to loose any more points.

0 Replies

The problem here is that ANY government-paid program of medical care for any class of citizens could properly be described as a form of corporate welfare unless the care itself is delivered by the government through its own resources or, if it is bought, accompanyied by the same kind of obnoxious government paperwork, rationing, and price coontrols that we see in Medicaid and Medicare. Moreover, since the average Medical billing secretary is cleverer and more proficient at manipulating the numerical codes the bureaucrats spew our so profligatly, than they are in designing them the price controls don't work anyway.

If you are opposed to "corporate welfare" in this sense then. practically speaking, you are also opposed to government paid medical care.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

That's because it is a gigantic drug corporate welfare handout scheme and doesn't save the consumer what they've been led to believe it will save. It could easily backfire on them. Not that they need to loose any more points.

Let me understand this. If the government pays the gigantic drug corporations for your pills, it is a gigantic corporate welfare handout scheme. If you pay the gigantic drug corporations for your pills, it is ___________? If the government takes over the drug companies so that they are state owned and give you your pills, to be paid for through taxes, it would be ________? Please fill in the blanks here for me. Have I left out any options?

I think the point here is that gigantic drug corporations are not the point of the debate here. If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare, as pointed out by georgeob1. So are food stamps corporate welfare for grocery chains. Lots of other examples are obvious. Hillary's health care plan would have been totally corporate welfare for the entire health care industry.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If I am understanding your premise here,

My premise? As if the idea of a single payer system is new to you. Wow!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare.

Nonsense. Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?

0 Replies

Roxanne,
YOU are the one that said a "single payer" plan would save 70%.

Yet,when asked for verification of that,you chickened out.

So,to use your words..."Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?"

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

Where did you get this factoid????

What kind of single payer system? Would it call for forcible enrollment of everyone? Would you ban private services for those who are willing to pay for them? What limits would you impose on the services available for those in your single payer syatem?

Invariably such systems involve both rationing of the care available and limitations on the earnings of care providers:" two factors which combine to reduce investment in new techniques and the number and quality of people interested in becoming providers. How would you deal with that?

Would you have the government finance all medical research? History shows that this is a good way to spend lots of money for very little beneficial output. (consider, for example the Genome Project - The government directed program spent billions more than their private competitors, but the latter beat them to the solution by over a year.).

Here is an excellent illustration of the Law of Unintended Consequences, Single payer systems deliver mediocre care and very little innovation. Canada gets away with it only because they get a free ride on new drugs and techniques developed largely in America, and because desperate Canadians, waiting months for a government controlled appointment with a specialist, can always come here to quickly get the care they need.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare.

Nonsense. Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?

I simply pointed out the obvious. Rather than disputing with any kind of evidence, you attack the messenger. If you don't agree with the message, provide evidence please. What is the difference between the government paying for your pills for a sore throat and paying for your doctor visit for a sore throat?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

Not too hot in my opinion. 70% of medical costs? Please run that by us again just to clarify that you actually said that. And who told you this?

Us???????????????????????

OK 70% might be a high estimate, ho much do YOU think it is?

A very simple question that okie chooses to ignore and instead repsonds with a diatriabe of non-sequiturs and personal attacks. Typical.

So if you REALLY want to have a discussion, answer the question.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Roxanne,
YOU are the one that said a "single payer" plan would save 70%.

Yet,when asked for verification of that,you chickened out.

So,to use your words..."Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?"

Bullshit. I responded with a very simple question that was never answered.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

okie wrote:
If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare.

Nonsense. Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?

I don't think it is okie who has been revealing ignorance here.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare.

Nonsense. Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?

I don't think it is okie who has been revealing ignorance here.

So what?

0 Replies

We shall see if okie, the heaklth care system expert can answer even a single question:

Quote:

OK 70% might be a high estimate, ho much do YOU think it is?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

So what?

Not much really. Mostly my comment was addressed to okie.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
If the prescription drug plan is corporate welfare, then so is medicaid and medicare.

Nonsense. Why don't you educate yourself on the topic or remain silent so that you won't reveal your ignorance?

I don't think it is okie who has been revealing ignorance here.

Oh I get it, Miss Georgeob1 is taking after Miss McGentrix with the girly insinuations.

I know the facts, that I choose not to play the mine is bigger than yours game reveals nothing except perhaps that you would not want to play poker with me. So the ball is in okie's court awaiting his answer.

0 Replies

Roxxanne,
Where does your 70% number come from?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

[Oh I get it, Miss Georgeob1 is taking after Miss McGentrix with the girly insinuations.

I know the facts, that I choose not to play the mine is bigger than yours game reveals nothing except perhaps that you would not want to play poker with me. So the ball is in okie's court awaiting his answer.

I think your personal fantasies are getting in the way of your argument. However it is OK by me.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
okie wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
A single payer billing system would eliminate 70% of medical costs. How is that for commomn sense?

Not too hot in my opinion. 70% of medical costs? Please run that by us again just to clarify that you actually said that. And who told you this?

Us???????????????????????

OK 70% might be a high estimate, ho much do YOU think it is?

A very simple question that okie chooses to ignore and instead repsonds with a diatriabe of non-sequiturs and personal attacks. Typical.

So if you REALLY want to have a discussion, answer the question.

Do you read my posts? I answered your question a couple of pages ago. To repeat:

"If I am understanding your premise here, the theory is that if the federal government pays all the bills, as a single payer, they will be able to make it more efficient and control costs. Of course, those advocating federalizing anything always have arguments that may even sound good on paper. We must remember that this never works as outlined on paper. It has been proven over and over again that people themselves, the people that actually purchase or receive the services themselves, are by far the best and most efficient arbitors of efficiency. It is unfortunate that people do not seem to learn this undeniable truth, and are therefore destined to make the same mistake over and over again.

If there was a single payer for housing, that is if all of our houses were purchased by the government, would the cost be reduced for housing. My answer would be no, it would very likely increase the cost of housing. Same principle for medical costs. I do not think costs will be reduced in the long run at all. Under the government, costs will increase and quality of care may well decrease. I think we've already seen a reduction in quality of care because of government meddling into health care."

So to repeat in case you missed it, I don't think health care costs would be reduced at all because of a single payer, that being the federal government.

P. S. I suspect what your next argument will be.

0 Replies

There's no radical left in America.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know