Outstanding Article

USFREEDOM911 said:
But just think how much better it could be promoted, by our elected officials showing their own trust in it.
Click to expand...

The people will come around. Not to worry.

BTW, I slept like a baby last night. I don't know if it was the turkey dinner or the relaxing, inane banter. Hope you did, as well. :)
 
apple0154 said:
The people will come around. Not to worry.

BTW, I slept like a baby last night. I don't know if it was the turkey dinner or the relaxing, inane banter. Hope you did, as well. :)
Click to expand...

Why don't you want our elected officials to have the same opportunity as the voters do??

You don't seem as much of a promoter of the Insurnace Reform Bill, a you first were.
Are you now having doubts?
 
apple0154 said:
The plan will promote itself once it gets going.
Click to expand...
Interesting way of describing what is coming. A law which REQUIRES people to purchase health insurance leaves little choice. A law which sets up a government panel telling us which insurance plans are acceptable if we want to change our paln leaves little choice.

I guess when a plan reduces the choices of the people, it "promotes" itself in the same way tyranny "promotes" itself.
 
Good Luck said:
Right. Do it the government's way or face fines. Refuse to pay the fines, face jail. Such a great way to get people to "come around" to your way of (not) thinking.
Click to expand...

Yeah... after spending a little time in jail you'll like what we've set up for you. haha...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Why don't you want our elected officials to have the same opportunity as the voters do??

You don't seem as much of a promoter of the Insurnace Reform Bill, a you first were.
Are you now having doubts?
Click to expand...

Elected officials do have the same opportunity if the need arises.

Me, doubts? The only doubt I ever had was when my EX went to the store for a quart of milk and returned the next morning blaming it on a long line-up at the cash. :cig:
 
Good Luck said:
Right. Do it the government's way or face fines. Refuse to pay the fines, face jail. Such a great way to get people to "come around" to your way of (not) thinking.
Click to expand...

More people will be insured resulting in good folks such as yourself avoiding paying for their treatment as happens at hospitals.
 
apple0154 said:
Elected officials do have the same opportunity if the need arises.

Me, doubts? The only doubt I ever had was when my EX went to the store for a quart of milk and returned the next morning blaming it on a long line-up at the cash. :cig:
Click to expand...

But why are you so againt our elected officials, especially those that voted for the Insurance Plan, to enjoy that which the voters are going to be required to comply with??
 
apple0154 said:
More people will be insured resulting in good folks such as yourself avoiding paying for their treatment as happens at hospitals.
Click to expand...

Everyone notice how apple now uses the word "...good folks such as yourself..."!!

That could be seen as a reference that he doesn't intend to have to be paying anything into this.

The true anti-right agenda: It's OK for the Government to take people's money, to help others; as long as they don't take Liberal money, to do it.
 
apple0154 said:
More people will be insured resulting in good folks such as yourself avoiding paying for their treatment as happens at hospitals.
Click to expand...
What does it matter if I pay for those who cannot afford it themselves through higher doctor fees, or through mandated payment of insurance premiums? I pay either way. With the hospital/doctor I pay a share directly for those fees that cannot be recovered. The way being contemplated I will pay for those fees through insurance premiums, plus insurance company profits. The universal plan I pay through taxes for the fees plus government bureaucracy. (And that is on top of voluntary donations to local clinics.) TANSTAAFL.

But any method used, I still pay. I don't mind helping to pay for those who cannot afford to pay themselves. What I do mind is paying unnecessary extras that invariably occur when government adds their two cents.

This is another problem with the philosophy of modern liberalism. You cannot seem to understand that at the bottom line SOMEONE ends up paying for those "free" programs, all too often with a bunch of unnecessary and inefficient government bureaucrats and or corporate sponsors lined up between the payer and the recipients.
 
Good Luck said:
What does it matter if I pay for those who cannot afford it themselves through higher doctor fees, or through mandated payment of insurance premiums? I pay either way. With the hospital/doctor I pay a share directly for those fees that cannot be recovered. The way being contemplated I will pay for those fees through insurance premiums, plus insurance company profits. The universal plan I pay through taxes for the fees plus government bureaucracy. (And that is on top of voluntary donations to local clinics.) TANSTAAFL.

But any method used, I still pay. I don't mind helping to pay for those who cannot afford to pay themselves. What I do mind is paying unnecessary extras that invariably occur when government adds their two cents.

This is another problem with the philosophy of modern liberalism. You cannot seem to understand that at the bottom line SOMEONE ends up paying for those "free" programs, all too often with a bunch of unnecessary and inefficient government bureaucrats and or corporate sponsors lined up between the payer and the recipients.
Click to expand...

Then why do government plans, universal plans, run at half the per capita cost? That's not the exception. That's not a few hand picked countries. That's the norm.

Government run medical is less expensive. A lot less expensive. It's been proven, over and over.
 
apple0154 said:
Then why do government plans, universal plans, run at half the per capita cost? That's not the exception. That's not a few hand picked countries. That's the norm.

Government run medical is less expensive. A lot less expensive. It's been proven, over and over.
Click to expand...
It is time to end one more of the left's lies about health care.

do some research the per capita costs of health care in those countries you keep nephariously referring to BEFORE they put their universal plans in place. You continually compare their CURRENT per capita costs to our current per-capita costs. Go back a bit and look at their per capita costs before, and compare to our per capita costs at the same period in time.

You will find that the ratio is about the same. The U.S has ALWAYS spent more per-capita on health care than any other country, going all the way back to pre WWI, universal care or not. As such, the current comparison of their costs to ours is without meaning. The conclusion that being on a universal care plan is what keeps their per-capita costs lower than ours is an outright lie.
 
Good Luck said:
It is time to end one more of the left's lies about health care.

do some research the per capita costs of health care in those countries you keep nephariously referring to BEFORE they put their universal plans in place. You continually compare their CURRENT per capita costs to our current per-capita costs. Go back a bit and look at their per capita costs before, and compare to our per capita costs at the same period in time.

You will find that the ratio is about the same. The U.S has ALWAYS spent more per-capita on health care than any other country, going all the way back to pre WWI, universal care or not. As such, the current comparison of their costs to ours is without meaning. The conclusion that being on a universal care plan is what keeps their per-capita costs lower than ours is an outright lie.
Click to expand...

Don't be absurd. Every country is at least 1/2 lower. You can't spin that away.

Regardless, comparing life expediency and other pertinent data countries with universal plans either match or exceed the US. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a look at universal plans instead of ranting against big government.
 
So, explain why countries in Europe are having a cost of healthcare crisis, France, just one example.

apple0154 said:
Then why do government plans, universal plans, run at half the per capita cost? That's not the exception. That's not a few hand picked countries. That's the norm.

Government run medical is less expensive. A lot less expensive. It's been proven, over and over.
Click to expand...
 
TuTu Monroe said:
So, explain why countries in Europe are having a cost of healthcare crisis, France, just one example.
Click to expand...

Countries with universal plans have been talking about a crisis since implementing them. When does the government ever say they have plenty of money for a project? .....Opps, I forgot about Cheney. In one interview he said the US had money for war so war was an option with Iraq.

The countries which are talking about a crisis are spending 1/2 of what the US spends. If they budget $3,000/person and the US spends $6,000/person then, sure, they will face a crisis as they haven't allocated sufficient money.

The same thing in Canada. There was a "crisis" in the early 90's. There is a crisis today. Meanwhile, the universal plan in Canada has been in existence since 1968. For over 40 years people have been receiving medical coverage even though a "crisis" is constantly looming.

Furthermore, Canada spends 1/2 of what the US spends. Imagine if Canada's budget was increased 100%.

It's no different than a household budget. If a family budgets $100/wk for groceries and the bill is constantly $120/wk then it's time to cut out the booze and cigarettes and raise the budget to $120/wk.

As long as there is one guy cleaning up a National Park it means there is one more custodian available for a hospital. As long as the government has money to erect a monument it has money for hospital beds. As long as the government has money for the multiple things it's involved in it has money for the ill.

What is more important than looking after our ill and disabled? Well, besides allocating sufficient funds to ensure a high speed internet connection so one can chat with their cyber lover, that is? :D
 
apple0154 said:
Don't be absurd. Every country is at least 1/2 lower. You can't spin that away.

Regardless, comparing life expediency and other pertinent data countries with universal plans either match or exceed the US. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to take a look at universal plans instead of ranting against big government.
Click to expand...
Spin what away? I am simply using all available information to analyze a claim made by proponents of universal care.

The claim, which is easily verified as true, is countries with universal care plans spend approximately 1/2 on health care, per capita than the U.S. spends. The repetition of this basic statistic is, quite obviously, to claim that the REASON the U.S. has twice the per capita health care cost over other nations is BECAUSE those other nations have universal care plans. Is that a correct assessment of WHY you (and many others) continually bring forth that particular statistic?

The problem is a single statistic has zero value in determining any type of relationship, let alone a cause-effect relationship. So let's look at additional health cost ratios, controlling the universal care variable, which is the one we want to study, right? If you look back 50-60 years, before most of those countries had a universal health care plan, and compare per capita health care expenditures, the, lo, U.S STILL outspends them by a factor of almost 2-1.

So, BEFORE universal care was implemented, The U.S. outspends other countries in health care by a factor of almost 2-1. AFTER universal care is implemented, the U.S. outspends those same countries by almost 2-1 per capita, for a ZERO difference.

So, given ALL the facts, where does the conclusion that Universal Care is cheaper come from?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top