A good example of why southern conservatives are not trusted.

Cypress said:
Well, thanks for the honesty about the sheer and mind boggling depths of your hypocrisy. You don't dispute that no matter how much you whine about government insurance, that you would be the first in line to accept the myriad government insurance benefits that insure your money in the bank, that insures you against catastrophic disability, and that insures you a wage if you become unemployed. In fact, you don't dispute at all that you would happily, and gladly take advantage of those government insurance benefits if it was neccessary at some point in your life.

I'd be embarrassed to be as much of a hypocrite as you are, but I've learned that neocons and teabaggers have no honor or principles, as a general rule.


I don't even get your question. Is it supposed to be the standard NeoCon ruse of "Liberals are just as big hypocrites as I am! Democrats do it too!"? That seems to be standard NeoCon tradition, to project and assume that others are as unprincipled and hypocritical as you are.

If we had a national public single payer health insurance system, I would have no problem giving up my private insurance.

What do I care? Private insurance doesn't provide me healthcare. They're just a middleman that makes money off being a third-party in a financial transaction. Doctors, clinics, and hospitals are the ones that provide me health care.
Click to expand...
swoosh!......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sorry, you can't have it both ways.....if that's what it's all about then stop using "they pay less" as a justification for your agenda......you're going to have to come up with some statistics to show how much those other nations pay for health care for those who can't afford it versus how much we spend before you can claim superiority.....

to start with, what percentage of Americans have no access to health CARE, not health insurance, but health care?......
Click to expand...

And neither can you have it both ways.

You want further verification from apple, but all you had for Mott was some petty put-downs when he asked for verification.

So which will it be? You going to start coughing up some facts and figures when asked?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And neither can you have it both ways.

You want further verification from apple, but all you had for Mott was some petty put-downs when he asked for verification.

So which will it be? You going to start coughing up some facts and figures when asked?
Click to expand...

Lame, Zappas.....Mott wanted me to convince him the Iraq war had meaning.....something he's denied for years......Apple made a specific claim about the cost of health care for people who couldn't afford it.....hardly comparable issues.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
that doesn't tell me how much of it is spent on people who could not afford their own.....or are you saying that after decades of socialism, nobody in Sweden could afford their own (not unexpected of course).......
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say how much was spent on people who couldn't afford their own. It's telling you how much it costs for each individual to be insured and receive medical care.

The point being the cost of universal medical, which so many people rant about, is a non-starter. Furthermore, there isn't one politician of prominence, let alone any political party, that campaigns on dismantling their country's universal plan in favor of a "pay or suffer" system which makes the argument that universal care is inferior another non-starter.

The only valid argument against universal medical, if one wishes to classify it as valid, is the people profiting off the misery of others will have to find a new line of work.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which explains why the left continues the lie that we are killing people by not giving them universal health insurance....
Click to expand...

Health care involves more than emergency care. People live every day with medical problems not considered life threatening but debilitating nonetheless. Because they don't have proper coverage/free access to medical care they let minor problems become major to the point where expensive intervention is required. Then we hear the frequent refrain about people not paying their hospital bill. There wouldn't be a hospital bill if they were treated at the outset of symptoms.

Lastly, illnesses not treated early often do result in a shortened life span so, yes, one could legitimately say lack of insurance results in untimely death.
 
apple0154 said:
The only valid argument against universal medical, if one wishes to classify it as valid, is the people profiting off the misery of others will have to find a new line of work.
Click to expand...

this is illogical....if your argument is that we are depriving the poor by not giving them health care, who is "profiting"......wouldn't it be "profiting" if medical service providers were giving them services and getting paid for it?.....how is it profiting if the services are not given....or, how is it profiting if the services are given and they are paid for by higher prices to the rest of society.....your meaning escapes me....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
this is illogical....if your argument is that we are depriving the poor by not giving them health care, who is "profiting"......wouldn't it be "profiting" if medical service providers were giving them services and getting paid for it?.....how is it profiting if the services are not given....or, how is it profiting if the services are given and they are paid for by higher prices to the rest of society.....your meaning escapes me....
Click to expand...

Of course it would be "profiting" if medical service providers were giving them services and getting paid for it but the services wouldn't be the price they are now because of volume.

Here's an example. Let's say a drug company charges $10.00 for one tablet of XYZ medicine. The government sets up a drug plan specifying the medications they cover. The government approaches the drug company and asks why the the price is so high. The drug company, like every other business, gives the standard reply, "We charge what the market will bear." In other words, "We charge what ever the hell we want and see if it sells."

The government replies with, "Good for you. In that case we will not cover your medicine. That means every patient in the US who requires that drug will be able to receive a similar, older version made by your competitor which will be covered. I hope you'll be satisfied with the few who do choose to pay for your pills."

The drug company has a choice. They can lower their price thereby having their medication covered by a government plan and sell many times the quantity or they can be satisfied with fewer but more costly purchases.

The same applies to most medical costs. A panel of doctors determine what the cost should be for a particular operation/treatment. Everyone requiring that particular operation/treatment will be covered by the government plan at a specific cost. The doctor has a choice. Either provide the operation/treatment at that cost and the government will pay for everyone requiring it or the doctor can charge more but the patient will have to pay for it themselves.

The remuneration will be fair so as there are sufficient doctors offering the operation/treatment but it won't be a gold mine for the doctors.

The same can apply to everything from hospital beds to bed pans if the government operates the hospitals. A company can sell 100 bed pans to one hospital and another 100 bed pans to another hospital and so on or receive one order for 10,000 bed pans. The large order will result in cheaper bed pans.

The point is to remove the "get rich quick" scheme from medicine. From doctors and nurses to medical supply companies to drug companies people will know they will not be making a financial killing by entering the medical field. It will pay a wage/price comparable to other enterprises.
 
apple0154 said:
Of course it would be "profiting" if medical service providers were giving them services and getting paid for it but the services wouldn't be the price they are now because of volume.

Here's an example. Let's say a drug company charges $10.00 for one tablet of XYZ medicine. The government sets up a drug plan specifying the medications they cover. The government approaches the drug company and asks why the the price is so high. The drug company, like every other business, gives the standard reply, "We charge what the market will bear." In other words, "We charge what ever the hell we want and see if it sells."

The government replies with, "Good for you. In that case we will not cover your medicine. That means every patient in the US who requires that drug will be able to receive a similar, older version made by your competitor which will be covered. I hope you'll be satisfied with the few who do choose to pay for your pills."

The drug company has a choice. They can lower their price thereby having their medication covered by a government plan and sell many times the quantity or they can be satisfied with fewer but more costly purchases.

The same applies to most medical costs. A panel of doctors determine what the cost should be for a particular operation/treatment. Everyone requiring that particular operation/treatment will be covered by the government plan at a specific cost. The doctor has a choice. Either provide the operation/treatment at that cost and the government will pay for everyone requiring it or the doctor can charge more but the patient will have to pay for it themselves.

The remuneration will be fair so as there are sufficient doctors offering the operation/treatment but it won't be a gold mine for the doctors.

The same can apply to everything from hospital beds to bed pans if the government operates the hospitals. A company can sell 100 bed pans to one hospital and another 100 bed pans to another hospital and so on or receive one order for 10,000 bed pans. The large order will result in cheaper bed pans.

The point is to remove the "get rich quick" scheme from medicine. From doctors and nurses to medical supply companies to drug companies people will know they will not be making a financial killing by entering the medical field. It will pay a wage/price comparable to other enterprises.
Click to expand...


In that case, you should post what your job is, how much you make, and then allow a panel of posters to decide if you're being paid to much.
If the decision is that you are making to much, then the same panel of posters get to decide what you should be making and you have to abide by it.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
In that case, you should post what your job is, how much you make, and then allow a panel of posters to decide if you're being paid to much.
If the decision is that you are making to much, then the same panel of posters get to decide what you should be making and you have to abide by it.
Click to expand...

No, one doesn't have to abide by it. They just don't collect money from the government. Let them work elsewhere. Just like any other company.

When you get a job do you tell the company rep how much they'll pay you or does the company tell you?
 
apple0154 said:
No, one doesn't have to abide by it. They just don't collect money from the government. Let them work elsewhere. Just like any other company.

When you get a job do you tell the company rep how much they'll pay you or does the company tell you?
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry; but if you don't like what the panel of posters feel you should make, then you can just quit and you can stay unemployed until you agree to work for what you're told you're to work for.

I guess you've never understood how a contract works.
But that's OK; because it's just one more thng you don't have knowledge of. :cof1:
 
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911 said:
Nope, sorry; but if you don't like what the panel of posters feel you should make, then you can just quit.

I guess you've never understood how a contract works.
But that's OK; because it's just one more thng you don't have knowledge of. :cof1:
Click to expand...

What are you going on about? The government sets a price and the doctor either decides to do the operation or not. It's really that simple.

Why does everyone try to make it so complicated? Oh, I know why. Because of the money.
 
apple0154 said:
What are you going on about? The government sets a price and the doctor either decides to do the operation or not. It's really that simple.

Why does everyone try to make it so complicated? Oh, I know why. Because of the money.
Click to expand...

OK and then you would be happy with a panel of posters setting the limits of what you should earn.
Unless you're all about the money??
 
apple0154 said:
What are you going on about? The government sets a price and the doctor either decides to do the operation or not. It's really that simple.

Why does everyone try to make it so complicated? Oh, I know why. Because of the money.
Click to expand...

so the choice is either the government's price or not working?.......do you believe we should use that standard for all jobs?.....
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
OK and then you would be happy with a panel of posters setting the limits of what you should earn.
Unless you're all about the money??
Click to expand...

Panels do that all the time. Even taxi drivers are governed by how much they can charge. Ever get in a taxi and the meter starts at $50.00?

And wasn't it your pal Reagan who had a little chat with the air traffic controllers?

Again, you make it sound like it's all new, different, never done before. A big mystery how to solve a simple problem that countries all over the world have solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top