TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Opinions on Obama health care initiatives
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt It might be rhetoric, but it is what the expansion of every government program ultimately boils down to. Government is violence. If you disagree, stop paying taxes for a few years then try defending your property when the I.R.S. comes to seize it. Bang bang buddy.

oh yeah, because not paying your mortgage or credit card or power bill and the private firms' response is so much more dignified

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Give people the choice to opt out of the public "option" (to not pay for services they don't receive) and I'm all for it. To get your 'free' government healthcare, you should be required to pay an extra tax to take part in the program. If you truly want it to be competitive with private insurance, this is the only way to do it krypt. Funding it by compulsory taxation from every citizen makes it a de facto monopoly.

Like how the US Postal Service made UPS and Fedex go out of business right? We should also opt out of public schools if we send our child to private school. Opt out of the military because I sure as hell don't benefit from having troops in Iraq. Opt out of the US Postal Service because I use UPS! Redistribution of wealth is a reality and to think otherwise is a myopic point of view. Affordable healthcare is this nation's primary concern and the right wingers all out attempt to stop healthcare reform at all costs will be the down fall of this country. Fucking Bush whackjobs.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Like how the US Postal Service made UPS and Fedex go out of business right? We should also opt out of public schools if we send our child to private school. Opt out of the military because I sure as hell don't benefit from having troops in Iraq. Opt out of the US Postal Service because I use UPS! Redistribution of wealth is a reality and to think otherwise is a myopic point of view. Affordable healthcare is this nation's primary concern and the right wingers all out attempt to stop healthcare reform at all costs will be the down fall of this country. Fucking Bush whackjobs.

I'm a bush wackjob? lol^3

No, I just recognize that the country is already bankrupt and socialized medicine isn't going to improve our fiscal situation. Yeah, we should abolish USPS too but that's another discussion...and krypt you really need to stop comparing military funding with socialism. Yes, wealth redistribution is what government is built on..but there is a huge frakking difference between "distributing" money on the constitutional functions of government (court system, national defense, etc) vs sending out entitlement checks and paying the medical bills of welfare bums. The first might lead to cronyism and corruption, but the second leads to tyranny of the majority. Keep following your path and the poorest 51% of the country will eventually be able to enslave the richest 49%..raping them with ungodly tax rates in the name of the "common good". I can't believe you don't see what a dangerous precedent all of these massive government policies of the past few years are setting. Turning a blind eye to the damage and disruptions caused by federal intervention is a very bad trait for anyone looking to research market phenomena for a living..

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm a bush wackjob? lol^3 No, I just recognize that the country is already bankrupt and socialized medicine isn't going to improve our fiscal situation. Yeah, we should abolish USPS too but that's another discussion...and krypt you really need to stop comparing military funding with socialism. Yes, wealth redistribution is what government is built on..but there is a huge frakking difference between "distributing" money on the constitutional functions of government (court system, national defense, etc) vs sending out entitlement checks and paying the medical bills of welfare bums. The first might lead to cronyism and corruption, but the second leads to tyranny of the majority. Keep following your path and the poorest 51% of the country will eventually be able to enslave the richest 49%..raping them with ungodly tax rates in the name of the "common good". I can't believe you don't see what a dangerous precedent all of these massive government policies of the past few years are setting krypt. Turning a blind eye to the damage and disruptions caused by government intervention is a very bad trait for someone looking to research market phenomena for a living..

The sky is falling pk. The U.S. $12 trillion in debt. We have $50-60 trillion in unfunded obligations over the next 40 years and are moving full steam ahead towards full blown socialism. Things are only going to deteriorate further in the coming years. I hope you have a good umbrella.

we all know you�d be against a �socialist� health care plan regardless of the financial situation.

correct..but the fact that we aren't even close to being able to afford it makes it that much worse. If Obama would make some serious cuts elsewhere, it wouldn't be quite so bad. I'd like to ask Obama fans why the budget for the military next year is going to be bigger than it has ever been? I thought he was the anti-war president...Why not start cutting there? $671 billion in military spending for 2010 alone? Orly?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt correct..but the fact that we aren't even close to being able to afford it makes it that much worse. If Obama would make some serious cuts elsewhere, it wouldn't be quite so bad. I'd like to ask Obama fans why the budget for the military next year is going to be bigger than it has ever been? I thought he was the anti-war president...Why not start cutting there? $671 billion in military spending for 2010 alone? Orly?

well there are two minor conflicts you're embroiled in, perhaps you've heard of them?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt correct..but the fact that we aren't even close to being able to afford it makes it that much worse. If Obama would make some serious cuts elsewhere, it wouldn't be quite so bad. I'd like to ask Obama fans why the budget for the military next year is going to be bigger than it has ever been? I thought he was the anti-war president...Why not start cutting there? $671 billion in military spending for 2010 alone? Orly?

We can't afford our current system either.

I think the the fundamental flaw with the far-right ideology is this; ignoring the plight of others because they "deserve" what they get is somehow cheaper and more just for those who have "worked for it." While in theory I don't have much of a problem with that because I do think everyone should be responsible for their own actions, that's not how it works in reality.

If an uninsured patient gets sick, they don't just simply curl up in a ball and die, they go to the hospital. Those costs ultimately fall on someone else. If a parent is unable to afford insurance for their child and the child becomes sick, the parent doesn't sit there and watch their child suffer, they take it to the doctor, again with the cost falling on everyone else. If an uninsured goes bankrupt paying for medical bills, the cost falls on us. There are multiple different examples that can be used.

I've rotated for the last month in a clinic where basically all we see are the under or uninsured. Again, all of their costs fall back on the insured and the tax payers. In many senses, we already have a universal health care system in this country in that everyone who goes to the doctor gets seen and treated if necessary. The cost is simply redistributed through those who are paying for their services.

My point is that we have two options and both require a "redistribution of wealth" to some extent. We can keep our current system, where the insured pay for the uninsured and as the proportion of uninsured grows, the cost to the insured becomes greater, creating a vicious cycle of fewer being able to afford private insurance. Or, we can switch to some sort of universal system where everyone pays some percentage of their worth into the system and everyone shares at least some of the cost of medical care. I prefer the second if for no other reason than the first is simply unsustainable.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono We can't afford our current system either. I think the the fundamental flaw with the far-right ideology is this; ignoring the plight of others because they "deserve" what they get is somehow cheaper and more just for those who have "worked for it." While in theory I don't have much of a problem with that because I do think everyone should be responsible for their own actions, that's not how it works in reality. If an uninsured patient gets sick, they don't just simply curl up in a ball and die, they go to the hospital. Those costs ultimately fall on someone else. If a parent is unable to afford insurance for their child and the child becomes sick, the parent doesn't sit there and watch their child suffer, they take it to the doctor, again with the cost falling on everyone else. If an uninsured goes bankrupt paying for medical bills, the cost falls on us. There are multiple different examples that can be used. I've rotated for the last month in a clinic where basically all we see are the under or uninsured. Again, all of their costs fall back on the insured and the tax payers. In many senses, we already have a universal health care system in this country in that everyone who goes to the doctor gets seen and treated if necessary. The cost is simply redistributed through those who are paying for their services. My point is that we have two options and both require a "redistribution of wealth" to some extent. We can keep our current system, where the insured pay for the uninsured and as the proportion of uninsured grows, the cost to the insured becomes greater, creating a vicious cycle of fewer being able to afford private insurance. Or, we can switch to some sort of universal system where everyone pays some percentage of their worth into the system and everyone shares at least some of the cost of medical care. I prefer the second if for no other reason than the first is simply unsustainable.

How dare you bring facts, logic and experience to this party of extremist rhetoric!

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I'm a bush wackjob? lol^3

No not you. But the people screaming at their Congress(wo)man at these town hall meetings were probably overwhelmingly Bush supporters.

quote:

No, I just recognize that the country is already bankrupt and socialized medicine isn't going to improve our fiscal situation.

The current system is bankrupting us. Don't you get that?

quote:

Yeah, we should abolish USPS too but that's another discussion...and krypt you really need to stop comparing military funding with socialism. Yes, wealth redistribution is what government is built on..but there is a huge frakking difference between "distributing" money on the constitutional functions of government (court system, national defense, etc) vs sending out entitlement checks and paying the medical bills of welfare bums.

You do realize that when uninsured person's get medical care, it's the people with private insurance who get to pay for it when the hospital starts charging higher rates to pay for it right? The private system is already redistributing the wealth.

quote:

The first might lead to cronyism and corruption, but the second leads to tyranny of the majority. Keep following your path and the poorest 51% of the country will eventually be able to enslave the richest 49%..raping them with ungodly tax rates in the name of the "common good".

There already is cronyism. You think the insurance industry is sitting on their butts watching this unfold? No, they are using everything they have, millions of dollars, to lobby against healthcare reform. It's in their best interest to be able to keep charging exorbitant rates on health insurance and get to blame costs.

quote:

I can't believe you don't see what a dangerous precedent all of these massive government policies of the past few years are setting.

When talking about healthcare reform, I'm all for it. The status quo is intolerable.

quote:

Turning a blind eye to the damage and disruptions caused by federal intervention is a very bad trait for anyone looking to research market phenomena for a living..

It depends on what that federal intervention is.

I also research markets quantitatively. My emotion is largely kept out of my analysis. Like my analysis of Halliburton. My model rates them a buy, but I know the people running it are war profiteers, who milked our country millions of dollars. Point is, I don't need to be a Republican, Libertarian, or Laissez-faire advocate to interpret the markets.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton The current system is bankrupting us. Don't you get that?

It's not bankrupting the 80% of the country that currently has health insurance. I pay $60/month out of pocket. I'm happy with that. My employer's cost for is around $2600 a year..or a total of around $3100. Yes, that is alot of $$ for someone to pay out of pocket if their employer doesn't help, but it is certainly do-able for most Americans if they budget for it.

quote:

You do realize that when uninsured person's get medical care, it's the people with private insurance who get to pay for it when the hospital starts charging higher rates to pay for it right? The private system is already redistributing the wealth.

Yep, that is a problem of socialism though isn't it? They are forced by law to provide service to those who don't pay..so naturally they need to recoup their costs elsewhere. I personally think they should be more vigilant when it comes to collecting debts. It shouldn't be too hard to come up with an extended payment plan for large bills..but instead they choose to "write off" their losses for low income clients and impose the costs on those who do pay. This is their prerogative and I see no reason to complain about it. They are the ones providing the service. They are in charge of training the staff and maintaining the property & equipment demanded by the public so they have the right to charge whatever they wish. Even with the high costs of healthcare, most major health companies make very little profit. I just checked Humana on Marketwatch and they had a WHOPPING 2% profit margin last year..lol

You are not going to lower the cost of medical services by getting government involved krypt. You are only going to HIDE the cost, and create a permanent multi trillion dollar government bureaucracy in the process.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt but it is certainly do-able for most Americans if they budget for it.

nope.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ndamerica/view/

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Yep, that is a problem of socialism though isn't it?

after all these years and all my corrections you STILL can't use the word "socialism" properly in a sentence. tsk tsk.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN nope.

Ah, I stand corrected. 45 million uninsured / 304 million population.. That means 85% of the country currently has insurance, not 80%. My mistake. And I never said ALL could afford it..but the fact that the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance would seem to prove that most can afford it.

quote:

after all these years and all my corrections you STILL can't use the word "socialism" properly in a sentence. tsk tsk.

They are socializing their losses..collecting more wealth from producers to take care of the parasites who don't pay their share. Sure this isn't political socialism but I think the term is appropriate.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Ah, I stand corrected. 45 million uninsured / 304 million population.. That means 85% of the country currently has insurance, not 80%. My mistake. And I never said ALL could afford it..but the fact that the vast majority of Americans do have health insurance would seem to prove that most can afford it.

See, this is what happens when you run your eye over a page and then your ideology sets off; rather than actually watching the damned program to get a view of what I was talking about. If you think that a majority of Americans have ADEQUATE coverage, and that insurance costs are acceptable, then you�ve been drinking the koolaide.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt They are socializing their losses..collecting more wealth from producers to take care of the parasites who don't pay their share. Sure this isn't political socialism but I think the term is appropriate.

Look, you can try to bastardise terms you don�t understand all you like. You�ll do nothing than appear like an idiot yank to the rest of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN See, this is what happens when you run your eye over a page and then your ideology sets off; rather than actually watching the damned program to get a view of what I was talking about. If you think that a majority of Americans have ADEQUATE coverage, and that insurance costs are acceptable, then you�ve been drinking the koolaide.

Sorry, PBS is always always always sympathetic to big gummint solutions and I have little respect for any of their "public service" documentaries. The historical and educational stuff is fine..but the political shows are full of shit.

quote:

Look, you can try to bastardise terms you don�t understand all you like. You�ll do nothing than appear like an idiot yank to the rest of the world.

Luckily I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt It's not bankrupting the 80% of the country that currently has health insurance. I pay $60/month out of pocket. I'm happy with that. My employer's cost for is around $2600 a year..or a total of around $3100. Yes, that is alot of $$ for someone to pay out of pocket if their employer doesn't help, but it is certainly do-able for most Americans if they budget for it.

That's not what this Harvard study found...

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses. Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/200..._bankruptcy.php

Himmelstein, D, E. Warren, D. Thorne, and S. Woolhander, �Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy, � Health Affairs Web Exclusive W5-63, 02 February , 2005.

quote:

Yep, that is a problem of socialism though isn't it? They are forced by law to provide service to those who don't pay..so naturally they need to recoup their costs elsewhere.

NeoPhono said it best..."If an uninsured patient gets sick, they don't just simply curl up in a ball and die, they go to the hospital. Those costs ultimately fall on someone else. If a parent is unable to afford insurance for their child and the child becomes sick, the parent doesn't sit there and watch their child suffer, they take it to the doctor, again with the cost falling on everyone else."

quote:

You are not going to lower the cost of medical services by getting government involved krypt. You are only going to HIDE the cost, and create a permanent multi trillion dollar government bureaucracy in the process.

As neophono made clear to you, we have two options. Allow the status quo to continue where uninsured persons get treatment at the cost of insured persons. Or get currently uninsured persons to pay SOMETHING and lessen the cost on everyone else. Pick one.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Sorry, PBS is always always always sympathetic to big gummint solutions and I have little respect for any of their "public service" documentaries. The historical and educational stuff is fine..but the political shows are full of shit.

i have a couple of friends like you. so caught up in their own ideological obsession that any and all information contrary to their viewpoint is casually dismissed under the auspices of "bias" (the irony being hilarious).

the doco makes absolutely no suggestions on what the best solutions are. it merely examines the state of the US health system. which i find a far better litmus test than your "well, i can afford my healthcare" argument.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Luckily I don't care what the rest of the world thinks.

spoken like a true american

guess ill just drop my personal anecdote here.

i have health insurance. i had to be tested for lymphoma. cost like $3000 after what the insurance would pay. that shit is ridiculous

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton we have two options. Allow the status quo to continue where uninsured persons get treatment at the cost of insured persons. Or get currently uninsured persons to pay SOMETHING and lessen the cost on everyone else. Pick one.

Option #3.

Send them a bill and hire a collections agency to collect the debt. Put a lien on their house/car/condo if necessary. Serious offenders with no capability to pay their debt could ask the state absorb the cost and work it off via community service. There are any number of ways we could lower the cost. What we don't need is more freeloaders...and when you make something an entitlement, that is what you are sure to get.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i have a couple of friends like you. so caught up in their own ideological obsession that any and all information contrary to their viewpoint is casually dismissed under the auspices of "bias" (the irony being hilarious). the doco makes absolutely no suggestions on what the best solutions are. it merely examines the state of the US health system. which i find a far better litmus test than your "well, i can afford my healthcare" argument.

Oh for the love of God. Visit their site. Read ANY of the articles. The link you posted contains plenty of insinuation that "the world" has it right with socialized medicine and that we should have something similar here. Most of their documentaries are loaded with anti-market, pro-government bias..and the fact that a proud lefty like yourself thinks they are an objective source is all the confirmation anyone needs.

quote:

spoken like a true american

Thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Option #1. Send them a bill and hire a collections agency to collect the debt. Put a lien on their house/car/condo if necessary. Serious offenders with no capability to pay their debt could ask the state absorb the cost and work it off via community service. There are any number of ways we could lower the cost. What we don't need is more freeloaders...and when you make something an entitlement, that is what you are sure to get.

So you chose option #1. Let the uninsured rot in hell at the expense of the insured. Freeloaders? Serious offenders? I don't even know why I'm trying...

Sending bills and hiring collections agencies to go after people who can't pay their medical bills is useless. If I can't afford healthcare, why the hell would a bill or collections agency all of sudden make me able to pay?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Oh for the love of God. Visit their site. Read ANY of the articles.

i do. regularly.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt The link you posted contains plenty of insinuation that "the world" has it right with socialized medicine and that we should have something similar here. Most of their documentaries are loaded with anti-market, pro-government bias..and the fact that a proud lefty like yourself thinks they are an objective source is all the confirmation anyone needs.

no, its your insanely ridiculous levels of bias that make you think this is the case. PBS is a lone voice in the wilderness surrounded by a hugely pro-market media, who use terms like "socialist" when they don't have any idea what the word means.

your comments say far more about your own confirmation bias issues than they do of PBS. i have yet to see a program from your country that approaches the awesomeness of the news hour with jim lehrer. oh no, public socialist broadcasting!!

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Freeloaders? Serious offenders?

its how he's been programmed to deconstruct and portray complex social, economic and political issues. Its far easier to make an un-winnable argument (things are fine guys!) when you constantly demonise the esoteric, faceless people who constitute these terms.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i do. regularly. no, its your insanely ridiculous levels of bias that make you think this is the case. PBS is a lone voice in the wilderness surrounded by a hugely pro-market media, who use terms like "socialist" when they don't have any idea what the word means. your comments say far more about your own confirmation bias issues than they do of PBS. i have yet to see a program from your country that approaches the awesomeness of the news hour with jim lehrer. oh no, public socialist broadcasting!!

PBS, the last bastion of true journalism left in America.

Things are fine guys.

And PBS is influenced by communists.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.