Outstanding Article

Cypress said:
You can say this until you're blue in the fact, it still doesn't make your assertion truthful. Public health insurance is cheaper that private insurance. These are basic facts, easily verified. Every developed country on the planet provides decent, universal healthcare for all it's citizens, at a fraction of the per capita cost we pay. I really think this issue is emotional for you, and facts, cost effectiveness, and equity are in fact not even on your radar.
Click to expand...
you want numbers, try looking up what the government pays for the coverage they give to our illustrious leadership. Then try applying that to the population of the United States and see what you come up with. The health care plan of the congress is not a "public" plan as you seem to imply. It is a self-funded plan, which is what many larger corporations use. But it is still managed by a private insurance carrier as are all self funded plans. Now self funded plans are significantly more cost efficient than most off-the-shelf plans. But that does not make them public.

As such, you are blowing the usual gammit of mindless, know nothing liberal shit pulled out of your ass. Stating that we can afford to cover all Americans with the plan used by our congress because public plans work in other countries is about the most ignorant piece of nonsense I have heard in defense of the idea.



Cypress said:
this is not a healthcare policy. It's an emotional response, that has nothing to do with a viable national healthcare policy. Do rightwingers have any real solutions or not? Can you cite one single example of one single solitary country in the world that has a healthcare system based at its core on charity and private insurance? Fuck theory, and coffee house ideology. Give me some real world examples, demonstrating how it works.
Click to expand...
That's a good one. You accuse me of emo responses in the middle of an emo response stright out of the DNC manual?

Take your head out of the governments ass for 30 seconds and think when the oxygen reaches your brain. YES, having congress share the same health care they claim is good enough for the people is a POLICY. Or at least a serious proposal. Just maybe if they had to place themselves on the level of the people, they would start thinking more seriously about how to get control of the health care issue, instead of cramming the usual government issue dildo up the ass of the public they are supposed to be serving. Why should congress NOT be on the same level of the people? Give me one valid reason instead of defending your political masters like a slavering lapdog.

And did it occur to you that maybe what WILL work has never been tried before? All kinds of things HAVE been tried in various countries, and all of them have their problems - problems which would be unavoidably magnified when applied to a much larger and more diverse society like ours. What you "Europe does it" morons cannot fathom is the fact that our society is not like theirs. We cannot simply copy something that works for them (with problems - even they admit that much) and assume it will work for us.

As for an alternate solution, I do have one which damned few have even minimally discussed: to actually (as opposed to artificially through government controls) curb health care costs. Rather than ignore that aspect of the problem and try to simply meet hyperinflated expenses, we change the reasons that cause health care to be unaffordable for so many. If health care costs hadn't increased at several times the inflation rate, health care would not even be an issue, yet no plan from anywhere has done anything but suggest how to meet and or subsidize those increased costs. I suggest is to take a good hard look at the factors that have caused such a phenomenon, and then examine the best way to control those factors. There is a reason health care costs have jumped throug hthe roof over the past couple decades, and it is not only due to development of additional technologies. Bringing costs under control would do far more for the issue than blindly trying to find a way to pay for them. It would even affect the rest of the world positively, since they tend to import much of our medical technology.
 
apple0154 said:
To continue with your post why don't you suggest a way people can be covered without the government having to implement choices? Let things continue on as they are now with people choosing their own insurance companies and coverage but if their neighbor contracts an illness the community levies a tax in order to pay their hospital bill? Would that be preferable?

You have your freedom to choose and your neighbor has coverage. Is that what you suggest?

What do you suggest? Do you have any suggestions other than just not helping people?

I'm listening.
Click to expand...
See above. Find the factors which are causing the ridiculous increases in health care costs and make the necessary changes to those factors so they no longer drive heath care costs at such an unreasonable rate. I've said this many times, but it bears repeating: if health care costs had risen with the rest of inflation instead of at many times the inflation rate, health care would not even be an issue; public health care options would not be an issue, none of it would be an issue. Imagine medicare/medicaid paying for health care at 1/4 todays prices. We could cover 4 times as many people for the same money.

Health care costs skyrocketed for a reason or reasons. We need to find those reasons, and find a way to manage those factors that caused the problem. Because the REAL problem is not that so many people are without adequate health care coverage, the real problem is people cannot afford adequate coverage due to unreasonable increases in health care costs. Make health care affordable (without resorting to artificial methods like subsidies or price caps) and the problem of affordability goes away for the majority of those currently without. THEN we can come up with a reasonable plan, like a somewhat modified medicaid, to cover the rest.
 
apple0154 said:
What part of "employer benefit" are you having difficulty with?

You see, here's the problem. Some folks feel if government medical doesn't offer a private room then it's not good enough for them when the purpose of medical care is to treat the individual and not replace a hotel room.

Once again, the nonsense of "government control" has been shown to be just that, nonsense. It has little to do with choices and a lot to do with not wanting to help others.

Greed and selfishness. That's what drives the opposition to government medical.
Click to expand...


But if this plan is so wonderful, then why shouldn't those in Congress and the Senate be obligated to use it also??
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But if this plan is so wonderful, then why shouldn't those in Congress and the Senate be obligated to use it also??
Click to expand...

Because it has to do with "employer benefits". A benefit package provided by an employer to an employee as I explained in msg 119. It's no different than a pension plan. Everyone gets the government pension that they pay into and some also get a company pension if they work for a large company.

No one complains about that. Should we deny people who worked for large companies the right to collect their company pension?

That's usually why people like a government job. While they don't always pay as much as private companies the benefits make up for it. Pension, medical, dental, life insurance, sick leave, paying for certain courses if one wishes to increase their education, sponsored seminars.........the list goes on.

On the other hand it's not unusual for one to leave government and get a much higher paying job. It depends on their priority.
 
Good Luck said:
SBecause the REAL problem is not that so many people are without adequate health care coverage, the real problem is people cannot afford adequate coverage due to unreasonable increases in health care costs.
Click to expand...

That's BS.

Government has been trying to bring in a health care plan for over half a century! President Lyndon B. Johnson brought in Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 and that was after 20 years of "debate" started by Harry Truman in the '40s. The 1940s!

However, if some folks still believe the solution is out of control costs and that they should be eliminated before any changes are made they fail to understand government run plans do control costs. Every government run plan on the face of the planet controls costs better that the current US scheme which is proven by the cost per capita in countries with government plans compared to the US.

The argument about excess costs is nothing but another excuse to stall. It is simply not true. But even if one believes it is true the solution is a government plan. The point being it doesn't matter which way a person believes. It is a non-argument.

The object is to cover as many as possible. That has been accomplished in dozens of countries at costs far below the US cost. That is a fact.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Good Luck said:
See above. Find the factors which are causing the ridiculous increases in health care costs and make the necessary changes to those factors so they no longer drive heath care costs at such an unreasonable rate. I've said this many times, but it bears repeating: if health care costs had risen with the rest of inflation instead of at many times the inflation rate, health care would not even be an issue; public health care options would not be an issue, none of it would be an issue. Imagine medicare/medicaid paying for health care at 1/4 todays prices. We could cover 4 times as many people for the same money.

Health care costs skyrocketed for a reason or reasons. We need to find those reasons, and find a way to manage those factors that caused the problem. Because the REAL problem is not that so many people are without adequate health care coverage, the real problem is people cannot afford adequate coverage due to unreasonable increases in health care costs. Make health care affordable (without resorting to artificial methods like subsidies or price caps) and the problem of affordability goes away for the majority of those currently without. THEN we can come up with a reasonable plan, like a somewhat modified medicaid, to cover the rest.
Click to expand...
 
Just too many things said there to concentrate on only a few.

Sullivan is right about the issue of religion. The Republican party wields god and christianity like a club. They live in a world where 50% of the marriages end in divorce and they say homosexuality will destroy the family.

Poll after poll, including one posted on this site just recently shows that republicans polled find torture acceptable to some degree in greater numbers than Independants and Dems. My grandfathers, both of them, served this country at a time when a vile evil resorted to torture of people, sometimes for information and sometimes just to torture. We defeated that point of view. There are monuments all over Europe that say never again, and yet a minority of americans would embrace that same mindset when it is convenient and expedient and in our interest, and our former leader was one of those people.

But Sullivan also fails. The Republican party is not the only party that supports the failed war on drugs that puts non-violent drug offenders in prison and pours BILLIONS of tax payer dollars in after it has been shown a failure. Democrats march lock step with republicans when it comes to drugs being bad Mmmmkay.

As a Brit, Sullivan has no frame of reference for the Right to Keep and Bear arms, and I have a problem supporting a party that has so much contempt for its citizens that it denies they have a right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, if necessary. That tells people to rely on the police even in the light of court decisions that say the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

I find it hard to support a party that feels the need to punish wealth by taxing people at higher rates based on success and hard work or because they feel bad that some people are going to be poor. There will be poor, always.

Adam is right in one sense, you can't want a pox on both of these houses, and then disengage. You have to become more active. I have tried to embrace the Libertarian Party, but they are a herd of cats. Some want anarchy, some are minarchists, some a social liberals and fiscal conservatives, but NONE of them can come together. As soon as a soon as a candidate embraces and idea that does not pass the purity test of others in the party support falls like a rock.

If one of the two existing parties jetisoned their fringe, if they embraced the right to privacy, the right to wealth, the right self defense, disavowed any government action in the saving of souls, and didn't care if their candidates were Jewish, Christian, Athiest or Muslim, they would win hands down and hold a majority until they too abandoned the principles that brought them to power. And so it would go.
 
apple0154 said:
Because it has to do with "employer benefits". A benefit package provided by an employer to an employee as I explained in msg 119. It's no different than a pension plan. Everyone gets the government pension that they pay into and some also get a company pension if they work for a large company.

No one complains about that. Should we deny people who worked for large companies the right to collect their company pension?

That's usually why people like a government job. While they don't always pay as much as private companies the benefits make up for it. Pension, medical, dental, life insurance, sick leave, paying for certain courses if one wishes to increase their education, sponsored seminars.........the list goes on.

On the other hand it's not unusual for one to leave government and get a much higher paying job. It depends on their priority.
Click to expand...

But if this plan is so wonderful, then shouldn't those in Congress and the Senate be obligated to use it also??
 
Socrtease said:
I find it hard to support a party that feels the need to punish wealth by taxing people at higher rates based on success and hard work or because they feel bad that some people are going to be poor. There will be poor, always.
Click to expand...

It depends on how one looks at "the poor". A lot of folks, if not most, run into hard times at some point in their life. Unemployment, illness, an injustice that has to be addressed by the courts.....those are times when government help is needed.

Besides the idea we are supposed to be ready and willing to lay down our life for our country if government is to function properly it requires the people to "like" the government. "Like", as in respect and co-operate.

The people have to know the government is there if they require help. Otherwise, compliance is only accomplished by the use or threat of force. That not only results in people resisting, whether it's cheating on taxes or other ways to skirt laws, but it sets up a "me against everyone else" attitude.

As for punishing the wealthy it is the poor person whose life is punishment. The life of the person paying taxes is invariably better than the person receiving help.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Socrtease said:
Just too many things said there to concentrate on only a few.

Sullivan is right about the issue of religion. The Republican party wields god and christianity like a club. They live in a world where 50% of the marriages end in divorce and they say homosexuality will destroy the family.

Poll after poll, including one posted on this site just recently shows that republicans polled find torture acceptable to some degree in greater numbers than Independants and Dems. My grandfathers, both of them, served this country at a time when a vile evil resorted to torture of people, sometimes for information and sometimes just to torture. We defeated that point of view. There are monuments all over Europe that say never again, and yet a minority of americans would embrace that same mindset when it is convenient and expedient and in our interest, and our former leader was one of those people.

But Sullivan also fails. The Republican party is not the only party that supports the failed war on drugs that puts non-violent drug offenders in prison and pours BILLIONS of tax payer dollars in after it has been shown a failure. Democrats march lock step with republicans when it comes to drugs being bad Mmmmkay.

As a Brit, Sullivan has no frame of reference for the Right to Keep and Bear arms, and I have a problem supporting a party that has so much contempt for its citizens that it denies they have a right to defend themselves, even with deadly force, if necessary. That tells people to rely on the police even in the light of court decisions that say the police have NO DUTY to protect you.

I find it hard to support a party that feels the need to punish wealth by taxing people at higher rates based on success and hard work or because they feel bad that some people are going to be poor. There will be poor, always.

Adam is right in one sense, you can't want a pox on both of these houses, and then disengage. You have to become more active. I have tried to embrace the Libertarian Party, but they are a herd of cats. Some want anarchy, some are minarchists, some a social liberals and fiscal conservatives, but NONE of them can come together. As soon as a soon as a candidate embraces and idea that does not pass the purity test of others in the party support falls like a rock.

If one of the two existing parties jetisoned their fringe, if they embraced the right to privacy, the right to wealth, the right self defense, disavowed any government action in the saving of souls, and didn't care if their candidates were Jewish, Christian, Athiest or Muslim, they would win hands down and hold a majority until they too abandoned the principles that brought them to power. And so it would go.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I just don't understand why apple would support this kind of elitism.

It looks like he thinks that Senators and Congressmen are above what they demand the common folk use.
Click to expand...

No more than, say, a plumber who works for a Shell Oil refinery probably has more benefits than a plumber who works for a two-man operation in a small town.
 
apple0154 said:
No more than, say, a plumber who works for a Shell Oil refinery probably has more benefits than a plumber who works for a two-man operation in a small town.
Click to expand...

But if this is good enough for the common folk, why isn't it good enough for our Congressmen and Senators??
 
apple0154 said:
It depends on how one looks at "the poor". A lot of folks, if not most, run into hard times at some point in their life. Unemployment, illness, an injustice that has to be addressed by the courts.....those are times when government help is needed.

Besides the idea we are supposed to be ready and willing to lay down our life for our country if government is to function properly it requires the people to "like" the government. "Like", as in respect and co-operate.

The people have to know the government is there if they require help. Otherwise, compliance is only accomplished by the use or threat of force. That not only results in people resisting, whether it's cheating on taxes or other ways to skirt laws, but it sets up a "me against everyone else" attitude.

As for punishing the wealthy it is the poor person whose life is punishment. The life of the person paying taxes is invariably better than the person receiving help.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Click to expand...

I 'like' and 'respect' our government (or really the politicians) about as much as inner-city black folk like the police.
 
I dunno, but I do know that the wealthiest senators are elitist liberals and they don't have a clue about the common folk. The medical care they want us to get would be beneath them, so it ain't gonna happen.

USFREEDOM911 said:
I just don't understand why apple would support this kind of elitism.

It looks like he thinks that Senators and Congressmen are above what they demand the common folk use.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top