World Politics

Page 247 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Let's work together to make America great again. Once all the poor people have died from lack of affordable healthcare the rest of us can really start to live it up.
Click to expand...

Don't you really mean 'lack of free healthcare?'

What's affordable to the poor?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Well eff 'em then, they die.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. They live.

Healthcare is free now.

BTW (slightly off topic) the DogFish Head 90 minute IPA is something you must try.

PS, can't get the picture to post (frowny face).
 
Cobblestones

Cobblestones

May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, those ideas will drive insurance rates down.

I've got a better idea. Why don't we as a society remove, by law, the profit motive from the health industry by forcing private insurers to take risk that will bankrupt them? That way we, as a society, can have a single payor govt system (that's free) with really high standards of care.

There. Fixed it.
Click to expand...

Agree on the single payer government system. Works pretty well in many countries. So you have come around and seen the light? ;)

My point is, yes, you can bring the rates down by cutting services which kind of defeats the purpose in the end (you could have zero rates with zero services if you want). But there's another way: you can just as well bring the rates down by removing overhead and profit by turning it into an efficient single-payer system as demonstrated in many countries around the world. You can make the payment structure flat or according to means (akin flat vs. progressive tax). Both models exist and results (several health indicators) are available from any of these models. Turns out the latter models give the best general public health indicators. So the results speak for themselves, really.

You might like it or not, but in the end it's also a bit of a philosophical question. Do you care whether poor people get quality health care or not? Do your care whether children of poor families get health care or not? Do you care whether some people have reduced lifespans and quality of life because the only 'healthcare' they get is hyperexpensive ER visits when they collapse, all the while this could be prevented at a fraction of the costs through regular doctor visits and access to medication?
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Republicans want healthcare to be a luxury only available to the deserving..Deserving meaning anyone equal to or above them on the economic food chain and who support the Republican party. It's not unlike most other things they believe in..They will gladly step on the hands of the person just behind them on the ladder. Being first in line requires someone be behind.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Agree on the single payer government system. Works pretty well in many countries. So you have come around and seen the light? ;)

My point is, yes, you can bring the rates down by cutting services which kind of defeats the purpose in the end (you could have zero rates with zero services if you want). But there's another way: you can just as well bring the rates down by removing overhead and profit by turning it into an efficient single-payer system as demonstrated in many countries around the world. You can make the payment structure flat or according to means (akin flat vs. progressive tax). Both models exist and results (several health indicators) are available from any of these models. Turns out the latter models give the best general public health indicators. So the results speak for themselves, really.

You might like it or not, but in the end it's also a bit of a philosophical question. Do you care whether poor people get quality health care or not? Do your care whether children of poor families get health care or not? Do you care whether some people have reduced lifespans and quality of life because the only 'healthcare' they get is hyperexpensive ER visits when they collapse, all the while this could be prevented at a fraction of the costs through regular doctor visits and access to medication?
Click to expand...

Okay, that made me laugh out loud and really is the crux of my problem with government solutions, particularly in this arena. If the govt was efficient I dare say we wouldn't be adding $1.5T this year to a $14T deficit (among a littany of other things).

Government is not efficient, never has been and never will be. It's akin to saying, "once we get the corruption out of corporate america we will no longer have a need for regulation....." Never going to happen.

Your philosophical questions are fine. Yes, I care that people get quality care and that's but one reason I'm against single payor. Poor kids need quality care too, yes I can agree with that.

I'm not buying the premise of your third question so I really can't respond to it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Republicans want healthcare to be a luxury only available to the deserving..Deserving meaning anyone equal to or above them on the economic food chain and who support the Republican party. It's not unlike most other things they believe in..They will gladly step on the hands of the person just behind them on the ladder. Being first in line requires someone be behind.
Click to expand...

Yes, once again you have it all figured out. We want the masses to die quickly. That way there will be no one left to exploit via low wages and poor living conditions.

Not to mention a market to buy all the usless stuff that we produce and force the great un-washed to purchase.


Being the first in line requires someone behind... you dream that one up yourself or rip off the Huffington post?
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Yes, once again you have it all figured out. We want the masses to die quickly. That way there will be no one left to exploit via low wages and poor living conditions.

Not to mention a market to buy all the usless stuff that we produce and force the great un-washed to purchase.


Being the first in line requires someone behind... you dream that one up yourself or ripp off the Huffington post?
Click to expand...

I got to go ride for a while..Lower my blood pressure and get some oxygen...Lessen the chances of scott being put upon by my needs for healthcare. Maybe someone will see me and join me further decreasing scott's victimhood.
 
Cobblestones

Cobblestones

May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Scott SoCal said:
Okay, that made me laugh out loud and really is the crux of my problem with government solutions, particularly in this arena. If the govt was efficient I dare say we wouldn't be adding $1.5T this year to a $14T deficit (among a littany of other things).

Government is not efficient, never has been and never will be. It's akin to saying, "once we get the corruption out of corporate america we will no laonger have a need for regulation....." Never going to happen.

Your philosophical questions are fine. Yes, I care that people get quality care and that's but one reason I'm against single payor. Poor kids need quality care too, yes I can agree with that.

I'm not buying the premise of your third question so I really can't respond to it.
Click to expand...

The debt has nothing to do with government efficiency. You can be as efficient as you want, but fighting two wars is going to cost, in particular when nobody dares to let tax cuts expire.

Government can be very much efficient. Medicare administrative costs are much much lower than of any private insurer. The social security administration, for the amount of money they're administrating, has a very very low overhead. Look at other countries as well, which can provide quality healthcare for everybody with premiums which are lower in average than in the US. I'm sorry you feel that government solutions are almost by definition inefficient and poor solutions. This doesn't have to be true, in fact, it isn't true in most of the cases.

What's wrong with my third question? That ER visits are incredibly expensive? That a lot of these visits could be avoided with regular healthcare? That this would in average be cheaper? Each of these points can be documented.

Point is, if there's a medical emergency, say a 911 call, hospitals cannot turn you away. You'll get patched up never mind whether you have insurance or not. They're not letting you die. Who's paying for this? Basically everybody who has health care and who is part of the system.

Anyway, we're basically putting a mandate on hospitals to treat any emergency, whether they'll get paid for it in the end or not. For that reason, I think it is entirely fair to have individual mandates to get health insurance, so that in an emergency, you're not exploiting the system.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
I got to go ride for a while..Lower my blood pressure and get some oxygen...Lessen the chances of scott being put upon by my needs for healthcare. Maybe someone will see me and join me further decreasing scott's victimhood.
Click to expand...

Yeah, pretty soon people like you will be telling people like me how much and what kinds of foods I'll be allowed to eat, thus adding to my already enormous victimhood mentality.... oh wait, people like you are already doing that.

Look out, here comes RedtheSodaCop.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
The debt has nothing to do with government efficiency. You can be as efficient as you want, but fighting two wars is going to cost, in particular when nobody dares to let tax cuts expire.

Government can be very much efficient. Medicare administrative costs are much much lower than of any private insurer. The social security administration, for the amount of money they're administrating, has a very very low overhead. Look at other countries as well, which can provide quality healthcare for everybody with premiums which are lower in average than in the US. I'm sorry you feel that government solutions are almost by definition inefficient and poor solutions. This doesn't have to be true, in fact, it isn't true in most of the cases.

What's wrong with my third question? That ER visits are incredibly expensive? That a lot of these visits could be avoided with regular healthcare? That this would in average be cheaper? Each of these points can be documented.

Point is, if there's a medical emergency, say a 911 call, hospitals cannot turn you away. You'll get patched up never mind whether you have insurance or not. They're not letting you die. Who's paying for this? Basically everybody who has health care and who is part of the system.

Anyway, we're basically putting a mandate on hospitals to treat any emergency, whether they'll get paid for it in the end or not. For that reason, I think it is entirely fair to have individual mandates to get health insurance, so that in an emergency, you're not exploiting the system.
Click to expand...

Back up a few pages. I posted the 2010 Federal Budget.

Yes, but for the tax cuts, we would be solvent.:confused:

The debt then, by your reckoning is because of the military expense? Ok, it's your world, I'm just living in it.

Government and inefficiency are nearly synonymous terms.

I have friends in Belgium with free health care. Two come to mind. One works for the State and the other is in private business. Both would argue with your assertion of lower cost. Their tax rates are ridiculously high... so much so that they both transact business in cash whenever possible. There's a hugh incentive to do so and I'll bet you can guess why that may be.

Govt now can force you to buy insurance? That's actually good for me personally, but I am very much opposed to this mostly for the slippery slope argument.

You can't mandate people do the right thing.

Our healthcare system has many problems, but nothing like what will exist once there is a single source.
 
Hugh Januss

Hugh Januss

Jul 9, 2009
7,869
1,277
20,680
Cobblestones said:
The debt has nothing to do with government efficiency. You can be as efficient as you want, but fighting two wars is going to cost, in particular when nobody dares to let tax cuts expire.

Government can be very much efficient. Medicare administrative costs are much much lower than of any private insurer. The social security administration, for the amount of money they're administrating, has a very very low overhead. Look at other countries as well, which can provide quality healthcare for everybody with premiums which are lower in average than in the US. I'm sorry you feel that government solutions are almost by definition inefficient and poor solutions. This doesn't have to be true, in fact, it isn't true in most of the cases.

What's wrong with my third question? That ER visits are incredibly expensive? That a lot of these visits could be avoided with regular healthcare? That this would in average be cheaper? Each of these points can be documented.

Point is, if there's a medical emergency, say a 911 call, hospitals cannot turn you away. You'll get patched up never mind whether you have insurance or not. They're not letting you die. Who's paying for this? Basically everybody who has health care and who is part of the system.

Anyway, we're basically putting a mandate on hospitals to treat any emergency, whether they'll get paid for it in the end or not. For that reason, I think it is entirely fair to have individual mandates to get health insurance, so that in an emergency, you're not exploiting the system.
Click to expand...

Not only is ER as family doctor expensive and incredibly ineffective general health wise, it also doesn't really help the people who deserve it the most. The lower income working people who mow Scott's lawn and do his drycleaning and probably take care of his kids (Scott I am using you allegorically here) and who's bosses like Scott "can't afford" to provide them healthcare. They are too honest to steal (which going to the ER when you can't afford the bill is) and too busy working to spend the countless hours that the ER requires anyway, so they go without until their situation becomes a major medical emergency.
Scott will probably explain why I am wrong as soon as he is done with his 5th grader competition with Red.
 
Hugh Januss

Hugh Januss

Jul 9, 2009
7,869
1,277
20,680
Scott SoCal said:
Back up a few pages. I posted the 2010 Federal Budget.

Yes, but for the tax cuts, we would be solvent.:confused:

The debt then, by your reckoning is because of the military expense? Ok, it's your world, I'm just living in it.

Government and inefficiency are nearly synonymous terms.

I have friends in Belgium with free health care. Two come to mind. One works for the State and the other is in private business. Both would argue with your assertion of lower cost. Their tax rates are ridiculously high... so much so that they both transact business in cash whenever possible. There's a hugh incentive to do so and I'll bet you can guess why that may be.

Govt now can force you to buy insurance? That's actually good for me personally, but I am very much opposed to this mostly for the slippery slope argument.

You can't mandate people do the right thing.

Our healthcare system has many problems, but nothing like what will exist once there is a single source.
Click to expand...

Leave my good name out of this.
You are right the govt. shouldn't be able to require us to buy auto insurance either.
On your last point I believe you are just plain wrong.
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Michele Bachmann's greatest hits:

"But we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

"I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America?"

"During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed ... The government spent its wad by April 26."


local smorgasbord? is that some kind of republican code? Something only people with law degrees from Oral Roberts University know about?
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
$28,000,000,000 per week upside down and you are worked up over Palin, Rush and Fox news.

2011 addition to the Federal deficit? $1.5 Trillion. Learn it. Live it. Love it.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/26/cbo-report-fuels-budget-debate/

Obama proposes "freezing" Federal spending at current levels. How brave.

Meanwhile, national unemployment is predicted to hover around 9.5% for the balance of the year.

No less than 11 states are facing potential bankruptcy... well not really 'facing'... they already are BK.

But the good news is energy costs will skyrocket as well as health insurance premiums, so there's that.

Epic Fail.
Click to expand...

Note the successful deflection from the topic of how remarkably ignorant Sarah Palin is.
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
"""Fox News has issued a statement on the full-page ad that a coalition of several hundred rabbis took out in Thursday's Wall Street Journal.

The letter, addressed to News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch (see image here), requests that host Glenn Beck "be sanctioned by Fox News for his completely unacceptable attacks on a survivor of the Holocaust" -- philanthropist and financier George Soros -- and that Fox News chief executive "Roger Ailes apologize for his dismissive remarks about rabbis' sensitivity to how the Holocaust is used on the air." (News Corp. owns both Fox News and the Journal.)

In a statement provided to The Cutline, Joel Cheatwood, senior vice president of development for Fox News, said: "We haven't seen the ad, but this group is a George Soros backed left-wing political organization that has been trying to engage Glenn Beck primarily for publicity purposes."""

ummm Who owns the Wall Street Journal these days??? ah forgit
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
redtreviso said:
Note the successful deflection from the topic of how remarkably ignorant Sarah Palin is.
Click to expand...

Deflection? You're the only one bringing her up.

I think you like her.
 
R

redtreviso

May 23, 2010
2,410
0
0
She is vile...but you two voted for her even though she is obviously a ***.

palin-frowning.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom