IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

@okie,

Quote:

The first thing to remember about Obama is to understand his statements are always cloaked to try to get people to think what is favorable, not what he actually wants.

This is a lie, and if you are claiming that it is true, you are a Liar, sir. You have no evidence this is true. I am not trying to give you a hard time, but statements like this - in response to a question as to where you do your fact-checking - are really, really poor, Okie.

The truth is that you don't do any fact-checking. You just seem to believe everything that comes along which confirms your worldview, regardless of accuracy or truth.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

and more than just a little paranoid...

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Surely you realize that the Health care market is not a free market. And you don't have much ability as a consumer to act like it is. So this whole presumption that the 'free market' provides choice, is bullshit. Our real-life experience has been the opposite of what you theorize should happen.

Cycloptichorn

It is partial free market at the current time at least, last I checked. We could use alot more to improve the system.

I guess you could call it that, though that's really just trying to protect your idea, and not accurately representing the health care market. When the consumers have no clue what the costs are and cannot make choices based on cost, it isn't a free market. At all.

I am calling it that because that is what it is. An example, we recently had a test run and after checking with the doctor we found the identical test cost less than half by traveling a number of miles, rather than having it done locally. Thats competition, and it saved quite a few dollars, which we cared about because of our deductible. Everyone could be doing this if they shopped and gained awareness.

I agree that the free market is not operating at optimum in the health care field, far from it, but part of the reason for that is that the government is already way too involved, not because it is not involved enough.

Quote:

Quote:

You claim free market does not provide choice? Do I even have time to debate idiots, cyclops, get serious.

You'll note that I didn't say that free markets don't provide choice, I said that we don't have a free market in health care. Please try and stick with my actual words, quote me if you have to do so in order to do that.

We do not have a total lack of free market forces in health care, but I agree it is not fully free market, but I think thats the problem. I think you need to admit you are wrong, cyclops, as you plainly are.

Quote:

Quote:
I wonder if cyclops will also deny factcheck is run by the Annenberg Foundation? Will he deny the sun came up this morning?

Why would I deny that? Other than your accusations that they are in the tank for Obama, there's no evidence that this is true or that anyone shouldn't trust them. I just went to their home page, and I'm wondering - what is the piece of pro-Obama propoganda you were referring to?

Cycloptichorn

Obvious, cyclops. First photo is a speech by Obama with people clapping. Strange coincidence isn't it? Also a graphic about czars that says "theres nothing out of the ordinary for Obama's czars." Now that is a tall tale for sure, we have a collection of leftists and whacko revolutionaries, you don't call that unusual? Then the next graphic is that of FDR, now that is convenient to show FDR, the historic icon, shown following Obama, an obvious attempt to associate the perceived greatness to the potential of Obama. Its all propaganda, from the choice of issues to examine, to how they are examined.

In many cases, such as granting medical care to illegals, it may be technically correct that the legislation does not state flatly that illegals will be treated, but it ignores the fact that Democrats oppose any mechanism to identify when someone is illegal when the medical service is provided. Technically Obama may not be lying in that regard, but practically he did and he is, the congressman was absolutely correct when he stood and pointed it out. So the factcheck.org is more about parsing words than intent and practical effects of legislation and issues. That is something Clinton made famous when he made the word "is" famous, and apparently alot of other people learned the craft very well.

The trouble with leftists, they cannot be totally honest about their true intents, because their intitiatives lose, so the theory is incrementalism, don't tell the whole truth, parse your words, and use buzz words that people like, such as competition and choice, when that is not actually what they want. You would have more credibility if you could admit that, cyclops. I think you have been more honest than some liberals here, even admitting you think the Declaration of Independence is wrong for saying God endowed our rights, and you also admit that you think animals are equal to humans, which really reveals a very twisted mindset.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

A good analogy is our current education system, which is woefully expensive and inadequate in my opinion, but if you want your kid to go to a private school, you not only have to pay for that but you also continue to pay taxes to support a failed "public option." I think that would be where we are headed with the public option in health care.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding! Give the man a cigar!!!!

Right, every child is entitled to a public education (or, education benefits, if you will). Certain minimum standards must be met and paid for through tax dollars. If those standards aren't suitable to meet the desires of the parent they have every right to purchase additional education for their children. The difference with health care is that every American isn't currently able to get health care benefits. Those who do get them tend to selfishly want to protect their own interests on the backs of those who don't. This is analogous to the premise that only families with children should support the schools, or only folks with cars should support the roads. Health care is a service - like education - the needs of which fall to us all to support. It isn't a commodity that one picks off the shelf.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I am calling it that because that is what it is. An example, we recently had a test run and after checking with the doctor we found the identical test cost less than half by traveling a number of miles, rather than having it done locally. Thats competition, and it saved quite a few dollars, which we cared about because of our deductible. Everyone could be doing this if they shopped and gained awareness.

I agree that the free market is not operating at optimum in the health care field, far from it, but part of the reason for that is that the government is already way too involved, not because it is not involved enough.

Pff, your one 'test' doesn't accurately reflect the health care market, and you know it. You may be able to shop around on the little stuff, but how do you price compare when you have a broken leg? When your child is coughing,a and won't stop? When your wife is bleeding from her breast for some reason? It is quite obvious that a large percentage of health-care situations do not allow for cost-comparison, and even if you wanted to, you have no way of identifying the costs. Your doctor probably couldn't even tell you the full costs of dealing with the vast majority of the things they deal with.

I do not believe that the government's involvement in health care has made the market 'less free.' How has it done this, specifically?

Quote:

We do not have a total lack of free market forces in health care, but I agree it is not fully free market, but I think thats the problem. I think you need to admit you are wrong, cyclops, as you plainly are.

I don't understand how you and others propose to 'fully free' the market. There are several structural difficulties in doing so that haven't really been addressed.

This next part is a little whacky -

Quote:

Obvious, cyclops. First photo is a speech by Obama with people clapping. Strange coincidence isn't it?

No, it is an article about fact-checking Obama's speech. There's a photo of Obama's speech. I'm not sure what the coincidence is.

Quote:

Also a graphic about czars that says "theres nothing out of the ordinary for Obama's czars." Now that is a tall tale for sure, we have a collection of leftists and whacko revolutionaries, you don't call that unusual?

No, I don't call that unusual. See, the fact that they are politically opposite from you isn't 'unusual' and Obama has not appointed an unusual number of them; Bush had more 'czars' than Obama does.

Quote:

Then the next graphic is that of FDR, now that is convenient to show FDR, the historic icon, shown following Obama, an obvious attempt to associate the perceived greatness to the potential of Obama. Its all propaganda, from the choice of issues to examine, to how they are examined.

Dude, this is a little paranoid. Seriously.

Quote:

In many cases, such as granting medical care to illegals, it may be technically correct that the legislation does not state flatly that illegals will be treated, but it ignores the fact that Democrats oppose any mechanism to identify when someone is illegal when the medical service is provided. Technically Obama may not be lying in that regard, but practically he did and he is, the congressman was absolutely correct when he stood and pointed it out. So the factcheck.org is more about parsing words than intent and practical effects of legislation and issues. That is something Clinton made famous when he made the word "is" famous, and apparently alot of other people learned the craft very well.

Dude, once again, you're so ******* wrong. The bill before Congress doesn't concern 'point of sale' transactions; it doesn't govern what happens when an illegal immigrant shows up at the hospital. It governs insurance. How exactly do you think that the illegal immigrants are going to buy into the Public option? It isn't about parsing words, it's about spending two seconds thinking about the issue in question.

Quote:

The trouble with leftists, they cannot be totally honest about their true intents, because their initiatives lose, so the theory is incrementalism, don't tell the whole truth, parse your words, and use buzz words that people like, such as competition and choice, when that is not actually what they want.

This is just a slur. I could just as easily state that right-wingers lie constantly and are only interested in themselves and what gets themselves ahead.

Quote:

You would have more credibility if you could admit that, cyclops. I think you have been more honest than some liberals here, even admitting you think the Declaration of Independence is wrong for saying God endowed our rights, and you also admit that you think animals are equal to humans, which really reveals a very twisted mindset.

I don't think the Dec of Ind is wrong, per se; I just think that it reflects the beliefs of the people who wrote it. It isn't proof or a determiner of factuality, however. Just people's opinions.

I think that an objective mindset would realize that the laws and rules we have governing our interactions with animals and other 'lesser' creatures, are rules which are formed from a power imbalance, not some granted right of dominance from an invisible dude living in the sky. I have a hard time understanding how you can constantly mis-represent my point to such a degree, unless you are doing so on purpose. Please stop.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Advocate, surely you realize Factcheck is in the tank for Obama, so it is not a good place to check your facts.

Horse ****. You have no proof of this, you just don't like that they call out lies coming from your side. Believe me, I've been plenty angry with Factcheck before.

As for the 'free market' idea that you and O'b are putting forth,

Surely you realize that the Health care market is not a free market. And you don't have much ability as a consumer to act like it is. So this whole presumption that the 'free market' provides choice, is bullshit. Our real-life experience has been the opposite of what you theorize should happen.

Cycloptichorn

The truth is that an insurance policy is an adhesion contract. It is offered by a rich and powerful industry on a take it or leave it basis to folk who have no bargaining power whatsoever. There is no free market nor choice when one side has all of the bargaining power and the other side has none.

0 Replies

The menace of the public option

Of all the current assaults on our noble republic, perhaps none is more dangerous than the public option - specifically, the public library option.

For far too long, this menace has undermined the very foundations of our economy. While companies like Amazon and Barnes & Noble struggle valiantly each day to sell books, these communistic cabals known as libraries undercut the hard work of good corporate citizens by letting people read their books for free. How is the private sector supposed to compete with free? And just what does this public option give us? People can spend hours and hours in these dens of socialism without having to buy so much as a cappuccino. Furthermore, not only can anyone read books for free in the library, they can take them home, too. They get a simple card that can be used at any library in town. No checking on the previous condition of books they've read. No literacy test. Nothing. Yet, do these libertines of literature let you choose any book you want, anytime you want it? No. Have you ever tried to get the latest best-seller at a public library? They put you on a waiting list for that, my friend. And if you do ask these government apparatchiks a question about a book, they start talking your ear off, and pretty soon they're telling you what to read.

Of course, if you break one of their petty rules and return a book late, you have to pay fines that mount grotesquely each day. Even if you die, your overdue fees keep piling up. Is that not a death tax? How long must the elderly live in fear of burdening their children with these unfair sanctions on their estates?

Don't be fooled for a minute. Somebody has to pay for these "free" libraries, and I'll tell you who it is, pal. Those good ol' suckers, the American taxpayers, that's who.

Have you ever wondered who's really behind this public library option? And don't you think it's fishy that they mask their nefarious activities with benign-sounding names, like Friends of the Library? What's their real agenda - and why do they have so many "volunteer" meetings, anyway?

No, my fellow Americans. We cannot wait until we're all goose-stepped into a massive book checkout line. This assault on capitalism and our very way of life has got to end. Be subversive ... burn your library card! Go out and buy a book!

M.C. Blakeman is the co-author of "Safe Homes, Safe Neighborhoods" (Nolo Press).

Source

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

0 Replies

Dems Taunt Reps For Not Having a Health Reform Plan

WASHINGTON " Even as Republicans pummel President Barack Obama's health care proposals, some GOP leaders worry their party is being hurt by a Democratic counterattack: Where is your plan?

Republican leaders chose not to draft their own comprehensive bill, focusing instead on attacking Democrats' plans as too costly and bureaucratic. Some prominent Republicans now fear they are getting tagged as the "party of no," and they want the GOP to offer more solutions to the nation's health care problems.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential GOP presidential contender in 2012, said it's time for Republicans "to pivot and say, in addition to emphasizing what we oppose, here are our proposals" for health care. The two parties can agree on some important improvements, he said in an interview Thursday, but Democrats must trim their proposed costs.

Democrats, meanwhile, see a rare chance to go on the offensive in the debate, which has sometimes seemed dominated by fiery attacks on Obama's proposals.

"The Grand Old Party's coffers are empty when it comes to health care reform," Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Democrats' second-ranking Senate leader, said Thursday.

A new CBS-New York Times poll found that only 14 percent of Americans think Republicans have clearly explained their plans to change the health care system, while 76 percent do not. Obama's numbers were better, though not stellar: 37 percent yes, 55 percent no.

Aware of the criticisms, House Republican leaders have compiled lists of bills and principles that various colleagues have offered this year. But even the whole list combined doesn't match the breadth and detail of the massive Democratic-crafted health care bills that have moved through five congressional committees and may soon reach the House and Senate floors in some form.

Democrats scoff at the Republican proposals, calling them skimpy outlines that would do little if anything to make health care more affordable and efficient. The Republicans' repeated calls for health-related tax cuts, without credible spending cuts to offset them, would dramatically increase the deficit, Democrats say. They note that no major GOP proposal has been subjected to scrutiny by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which has given cost estimates for the Democratic proposals.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/dems-taunt-gop-wheres-you_n_307560.html

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Scoffing and taunting is not how I want them spending their time.

Any of them!

0 Replies

Congress Deadlocked Over How To Not Provide Health Care

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/congress_article_large.article_large.jpg

WASHINGTON"After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.

"Both parties understand that the current system is broken," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. "But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It’s a very complicated issue."
"Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve," Pelosi added.

The legislative stalemate largely stems from competing ideologies deeply rooted along party lines. Democrats want to create a government-run system for not providing health care, while Republicans say coverage is best denied by allowing private insurers to make it unaffordable for as many citizens as possible.

"We have over 40 million people without insurance in this country today, and that is unacceptable," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said. "If we would just quit squabbling so much, we could get that number up to 50 or even 100 million. Why, there's no reason we can't work together to deny health care to everyone but the richest 1 percent of the population."
"That's what America is all about," he added.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said on Meet The Press that Republicans would never agree to a plan that doesn't allow citizens the choice to be denied medical care in the private sector.
"Americans don't need some government official telling them they don't have the proper coverage to receive treatment," Boehner said. "What they need is massive insurance companies to become even more rich and powerful by withholding from average citizens the care they so desperately require. We're talking about people's health and the obscene profits associated with that, after all."

Though there remain irreconcilable points, both parties have reached some common ground in recent weeks. Senate leaders Harry Reid (D-NV) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) point to Congress' failure to pass legislation before a July 31 deadline as proof of just how serious lawmakers are about stringing along the American people and never actually reforming the health care industry in any meaningful way.

"People should know that every day we are working without their best interests in mind," Reid said. "But the goal here is not to push through some watered-down bill that only denies health care to a few Americans here and a few Americans there. The goal is to recognize that all Americans have a God-given right to proper medical attention and then make sure there's no chance in hell that ever happens."

"No matter what we come up with," Reid continued, "rest assured that millions of citizens will remain dangerously uninsured, and the inflated health care industry will continue to bankrupt the country for decades."
Other lawmakers stressed that, while there has been some progress, the window of cooperation was closing.

"When you get into the nuts and bolts of how best not to provide people with care essential to their survival, there are many things to take into consideration," Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said. "I believe we can create a plan for Americans that allows them to not be able to go to the hospital, not get the treatment they need, and ultimately wither away and die. But we've got to act fast."
For his part, President Barack Obama claimed to be optimistic, even saying he believes that a health care denial bill will pass in both houses of Congress by the end of the year.

"We have an opportunity to do something truly historic in 2009," Obama said to a mostly silent crowd during a town hall meeting in Virginia yesterday. "I promise I will only sign a clear and comprehensive health care bill that fully denies coverage to you, your sick mother, her husband, middle-class Americans, single-parent households, the unemployed, and most importantly, anyone in need of emergency medical attention."
"This administration is committed to not providing health care," Obama added. "Not just for this generation of Americans, but for many generations to come"

Source

0 Replies

okie here, you know what libs and Democrats, I am getting a little tired of being preached at by you guys, you guys being the same people that consent to the weakest and most innocent among us to die by your own hand. Kind of a cruel thing to say, but its the truth. I have to conclude that you guys being all worked up all in a tizzy because your health care is not paid for is not because of compassion. How could it be?

That congressman guy I think from Florida, whatever his name is, talking about a holocaust, what a total and absolute nincompoop. That burned me up, and I am tired of his pathetic ilk.

I'm also tired of cyclops preaching about health care, but at the same time he claims man is not worth more than a rat. Cyclops, you should hang your head in shame and you should know it.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB , What the conservatives miss is very simple; education is a public good because it helps our country compete in the world marketplace with creativity and the needed skills in commerce. Without this public benefit, our country would never have achieved the superpower status of the past century.

It's the same with health care; it's beneficial for the whole country to make sure our citizens are healthy. Only the government is in a position to make sure that its citizens remain healthy - to share in the economic productive capacity. It's important that our children our healthy, because that impacts their education - which in turn impacts our economy.

Most, if not all, developed countries provide their citizens with universal health care. Their health care system hasn't transformed them into socialist countries; Japan and Germany are still the biggest economy in the world after the US.

Most developed countries with universal health care also enjoy better health and live longer.

Why are conservatives fighting against better health and longer life?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

This is a lie, and if you are claiming that it is true, you are a Liar, sir.

Are you channeling Keith Olbermann here?

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

okie here, you know what libs and Democrats, I am getting a little tired of being preached at by you guys, you guys being the same people that consent to the weakest and most innocent among us to die by your own hand. Kind of a cruel thing to say, but its the truth. I have to conclude that you guys being all worked up all in a tizzy because your health care is not paid for is not because of compassion. How could it be?

What a bunch of crap. I need nobody to pay for my health care, and am I wrong in thinking that I actually help pay for yours, Okie? You're not on Medicare and never plan on going on it? This is a non-sequitur of yours.

Quote:

That congressman guy I think from Florida, whatever his name is, talking about a holocaust, what a total and absolute nincompoop. That burned me up, and I am tired of his pathetic ilk.

How Ironic, seeing as you are the one who has gone to extreme lengths to show that Hitler was a leftist and that modern Liberals are actually Fascists. You didn't seem to hold back when it was you doing the accusing.

Quote:

I'm also tired of cyclops preaching about health care, but at the same time he claims man is not worth more than a rat. Cyclops, you should hang your head in shame and you should know it.

I should be ashamed for what? Be specific. I'm certainly not ashamed for taking the time to call out your bullshit and lies, Okie.

I think I had it right above; you don't give a **** about healthcare, because you feel that YOURS is okay, and you don't care about anyone else. At all. You don't even care about the 'weakest and most innocent.' Not at all. It's all a pretense on your part.

Typical Republicanism in action...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A wild story out of Maine.

Anthem Health Plans of Maine, a subsidiary of WellPoint, is suing the state because they want to increase premium rates by 18.5% on their 12,000 individual insurance policy holders, so they can guarantee themselves a 3% profit margin. This story shows how silly it would be to solely rely on regulation to rein in insurance industry practices.

Like many other states, Anthem Health Plans hold a monopoly on the individual insurance market in Maine, controlling 79% of all the plans. Also like many other states, they are licensed to sell insurance through the Department of Insurance, who must clear all rate increases prior to implementation. Originally, Anthem Health Plans were a nonprofit Blue Cross and Blue Shield corporation licensed to practice in Maine since 1939. In 1999, Anthem bought the business and began to operate it as a for-profit company. Since that point, Anthem has raised premium rates 10 times, and 8 of those times have been double-digit rate increases.

Jan-99: 20.4%
Nov-99: 15.7%
Jan-01: 23.5%
Feb-02: 12.7%
Jan-03: 3.4%
Mar-05: 14.5%
Mar-06: 16.3%
Jan-07: 16.7%
Jul-07: 1.3%
Jan-08: 12.5%

The average individual Maine rate-payer is paying four times as much for insurance than they did ten years ago.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/10/5/789913/-WellPoint-Sues-Maine-To-Raise-Premiums-18.5

---

This gives the lie to the concept that 'regulatory reform' will have any meaningful effect on insurers. What will have an effect, is another option - a cheaper one, which will force them to trim their profit margins and end the practice of jacking up the rates year after year.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Actually if you do the math correctly it is 3.55 times what they were paying a decade ago - not 4 times. That works out to an annual increase of about 13.5%/year. Fairly high to be sure, but costs nationally have risen fast during that period. I don't know how Maine's results compare to the national average.

It would be interesting to know why Blue Cross sold out to this company. Perhaps the state regulator was not allowing cost increases commensurate with the coverage Blue Cross was providing. The 3% profit is about what is required to attract the capital required to operate the scheme.

Your compatison with a government operated plan is meaningless in that government doesn't include the cost of capital in its accounting and, more significantly, a government plan would both hide its real cost through the typical deficit financing behind all such entitlements and alter the comparison by inserting a bureaucracy with far greater intrusive power than even insurers in the doctor patient relationship. While the gopvernment claims an ability to reduce costs without affecting the quality of service, it has no track record in actually doing so. Indeed Medicare and Medicaid are rife with waste and fraud and financed through additions to the national debt which ultimately tax everyone. The natural feedback signals in a (relatively)free market that would increase supply when demand (and prices) rise and eliminate poor quality providers will be completely replaced by the upside down logic of central brueaucratic management.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

Actually if you do the math correctly it is 3.55 times what they were paying a decade ago - not 4 times. That works out to an annual increase of about 13.5%/year. Fairly high to be sure, but costs nationally have risen fast during that period. I don't know how Maine's results compare to the national average.

Neither do I, but it's unconscionably high rise.

Quote:

It would be interesting to know why Blue Cross sold out to this company. Perhaps the state regulator was not allowing cost increases commensurate with the coverage Blue Cross was providing. The 3% profit is about what is required to attract the capital required to operate the scheme.

Quote:

Your compatison with a government operated plan is meaningless in that government doesn't include the cost of capital in its accounting and, more significantly, a government plan would both hide its real cost through the typical deficit financing behind all such entitlements and alter the comparison by inserting a bureaucracy with far greater intrusive power than even insurers in the doctor patient relationship. While the gopvernment claims an ability to reduce costs without affecting the quality of service, it has no track record in actually doing so. Indeed Medicare and Medicaid are rife with waste and fraud and financed through additions to the national debt which ultimately tax everyone. The natural feedback signals in a (relatively)free market that would increase supply when demand (and prices) rise and eliminate poor quality providers will be completely replaced by the upside down logic of central brueaucratic management.

I believe you are 100% incorrect when you describe the current situation as a 'free market.' It is nothing of the sort. And the results have been worse than what you claim the problems with the solution would be - a lot worse.

I am feeling more confident than ever in my original position - though I may have been off by a month on my prediction. The Dems are going to pass a bill with a public option and Obama will sign it, this Fall. Are you still feeling so cock-sure that they won't, George, like you did this Summer when the crazies were out yelling? I doubt you do.

Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time in the future to sit around criticizing the program and telling us how right you were all along; that ought to be some consolation.

---

Specifically from the above paragraph,

Quote:

Indeed Medicare and Medicaid are rife with waste and fraud and financed through additions to the national debt which ultimately tax everyone.

Medicare and -aid are no more rife with 'waste and fraud' than their private counterparts; and the rises in costs that people will see are no larger than what they are currently experiencing from private insurance. Your posts never point out the fact that the current situation is fucked; and I think I know why: because it works fine for you personally, and that's what really matters at the end of the day for Republicans.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Medicare and -aid are no more rife with 'waste and fraud' than their private counterparts; and the rises in costs that people will see are no larger than what they are currently experiencing from private insurance. Cycloptichorn

Would you care to provide us with some of the 'facts" you prize so much to back up these remarkable assertions?

I believe the truth is the criticisms so often levied against insurers stem mostly from their efforts to (1) protect the rate base of their current customers by excluding high cost/risk new entrants; and (2) enforcing the contractsd they sign - including the fine print, which I will acknowledge can be deceptive. Government does neither . No fault there - indeed there are some possible social benefits involved. However government already has a piss poor track record managing its entitlement budgets and doubling the exposure could wreck the economy that supports us all with far worse consequences than those we wish to eliminate in our current health care system.

I didn't say we has a free market for health care - only "fairly free". A government plan would end that entirely, leaving us only with the misery that economic central planning has produced wherever it was tried. At least today consumers can opt between Blue cross-type plans and lower cost HMOs or high deductable plans. With a government option and the inevitable taxes on private options the government will have the power to distort the market anyway it chooses and to whatever degree it chooses.

As I recall your original prediction was for a plan with a public option, signed by the president before the end of October. I doubt seriously that will occur .
For myself, I haven't made any predictions, other than that yours won't likely occur.

I agree that the present system can and should be improved. However, I don't see what has been proposed so far in any of the Democrat draft legislation as a net improvement - and apparently a very large fraction, probably a majority, of the American people see it that way too.

1 Reply

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know