#81  
Old 11-13-2012, 06:38 PM
Also l wanted to state that why l am talking about the medicare system you will be getting and the benifits is because when Obama visited Australia last year he wanted to have a diffeent system so people could get proper medical help and he liked our medicare system

So it would be interesting it see how it benifits America

I bet you will find a big difference to the one you have now
  #82  
Old 11-13-2012, 07:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
I was waiting for the part about pedophiles. And it never came.
Pedophiles are covered too, don't worry
  #83  
Old 11-13-2012, 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
It does in fact qualify you. What else do you think the government should give you? A free car so you can go to the free doctor? Free clothing to wear to that doctor? Well you are gonna need gas to get there too so along with EBT, free medical care, free clothing, free car, you now need an EBT card for gas too.

At what point (I doubt you ever have) do you say to yourself, holy crap I am literally not responsible for a single thing in my entire life because Obama gives me everything. From your attitude though that would seem to make you happy, instead of realizing just how pathetic that really is.

Wow. I love these wild/extreme assumptions! I don't want the government to give me anything but a national healthcare system like the rest of the fucking world has. You DO realize America is NOT number 1 when it comes to their healthcare system, correct? There IS a reason for that.
  #84  
Old 11-13-2012, 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
Wow. I love these wild/extreme assumptions! I don't want the government to give me anything but a national healthcare system like the rest of the fucking world has. You DO realize America is NOT number 1 when it comes to their healthcare system, correct? There IS a reason for that.

Sure thing comrade
  #85  
Old 11-13-2012, 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post

What you did was not only unfair to many, but just insulting. Why can't you just accept that there are others with an opinion different from your's and it might not be stupid, racist or whatever else you say about a different opinion? You should to the fact that you might be wrong and accept it when if proven so without blaming others
This coming from someone who equated gay marriage with horse fucking...

Here's a fun fact: Ever stop and consider the fact that it is actually you who is wrong? You did lose last week, after all.
  #86  
Old 11-14-2012, 02:50 AM
You know... whenever I hear anti-Capitalist types talking about things they don't understand (which, let's be honest, is a lot), or describe an America that only exists in a fantasy world this is how I imagine they act all the time.
  #87  
Old 11-14-2012, 03:18 AM
I have no love for insurance companies. I'd love to get this ridiculous middle-man out of the way in many respects. Let's remember that the only reason insurance companies are in the position they are today is because FDR stepped in during WWII to impose wage freezes. Of course, employers still wanted to compete for competent labor so they got around the wage freeze by offering benefits including health insurance. Government promoted that practice by offering tax incentives to employers and laws requiring larger sized companies to offer certain benefits. As more health insurance entered the medical market, people became less selective about their care because somebody else was footing the bill. As this further skewed prices, health care became even more expensive for those without insurance thus forcing those people to try to get insurance too. And so on and so forth and the cycle continues.

Unhealthy people drive up the cost in one of two ways:

A) If taxpayer dollars are directly paying for their care.

or, again just to reiterate

B) The health insurance market is artificially flooded with a boatload of customers has has been the case in America since WWII when our own government began "encouraging" both directly (tax breaks, employer mandates, and now actual citizen requirements) and indirectly (WWII wage controls which started this whole backdoor notion of employers offering non-wage compensation in the form of health insurance)more and more business owners to provide health insurance (usually full coverage) as part of employee compensation. Millions more people end up buying full coverage health insurance plans than otherwise would have. The result? People are FAR less cost conscious about their medical purchases which raises everybody's prices. The fatsos and smokers (and bikers and surfers, and sunbathers, and promiscuous) and everybody else that indulges in activities that increase their risk of sickness/injury get herded onto these plans too as part of their employee compensation and raise costs for everybody on those plans.

Once government starts paying for everybody, it will only get worse.

I read where Justice Roberts has reigned in the Commerce Clause for Obamacare. That is incorrect. He has rendered the commerce clause obsolete as regards the regulation of inactivity, such as the failure to buy health insurance. So what?

All Congress needs to do is include the terms "tax," "penalty," "fine," or some such in legislation, and the precedent which Justice Roberts has established will assure its constitutionality.

Why bother with "commerce clause" discussions, when it is so easy to impose the will of Congress on every American?

Commuters must pay a fine if (a) they commute by automobile, (b) live more than 40 miles from their place of employment, and (c) make more than $xxx/annum. The fine can be avoided by purchasing a Chevy Volt. Under this ruling that is totally legal for Congress to do.

Again I'm fine getting the middle man out of the way (whether it's government or private) so let's stop offering tax incentives to employers to provide health insurance and lets stop requiring that larger employers provide it.

Health insurance should be just that - insurance. It should be something you buy with a high deductible in case of something catastrophic like cancer or a car accident. Everyday doctor stuff should be paid out of pocket. Let people actually have an incentive to research and shop around for their day to day medical needs instead of just buying any drug/service with the knowledge that somebody else is footing the bill. Smarter, choosier, consumers lowers prices for everybody.

I also want to mention out how people love to point to other nation's social policies and just because they exist or "works" (without explaining how or why or the cost of it "working") it automatically justifies it on how our nation should be ran. It truly is the most nebulous point you can make. "But 'it works' in blah blah. That social policy 'works' in that country and that other social policy 'works' in that country." Using that logic then lets just encourage every citizen to have a gun, hey it works in Switzerland because they have the least amount of gun crimes. Yeah Cuba has universal health care, they also don't have enough toilet paper but again its not solely because of their universal healthcare costs. You have to look at all the gears and see how they work. Some just seem willing to throw out all the other gears just so they can have this one square part to fit in a round hole.

Every nation is set up differently with thousands upon thousands of various laws, regulations and social policies that are established. There is no way you can compare one social policy from one nation to another unless you break down EVERYTHING about what makes their nation their nation. Every one of them is established differently with different values, some homogenous or others large/small, healthy/unhealthy, crime/less crime, small land size/large land size etc.

There is a reason why our healthcare system is getting worse because government involvement in the industry has grown (yes that's a fact). Long term or short term direct/indirect consequences are the result of what we've been getting. We had a pretty good system back when there was less government and Americans were more price conscious. Our medial industry was the envy of the world but now that you want every adult to be completely unconscious about the cost of their healthcare with universal healthcare it'll somehow get better? People can't understand we don't live in a world where things are actually free. In the end you have to pay for shit if you expect quality care and innovation.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-14-2012 at 04:13 AM..
  #88  
Old 11-14-2012, 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
You did lose last week, after all.
2 Things

We all lost last week.

Just because a majority is for something doesn't make it right or even partially right. Just ask hitler.




***waits patiently for the "oh my gawwdd you just said obama was hitler oh gawdd someone ban this right wing tea bagger oh my gawwdd" **

Last edited by MovieMaster; 11-14-2012 at 01:27 PM..
  #89  
Old 11-14-2012, 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
This coming from someone who equated gay marriage with horse fucking...

Here's a fun fact: Ever stop and consider the fact that it is actually you who is wrong? You did lose last week, after all.
LOL Sure.

Quote:
Post 61 in this thread 11-12-2012, 07:03 PM

In light of some silly people in this country signing something asking their state to leave the union......

Although I do not believe in what the President is planning and trying to do, I do hope I am wrong and it leads to a better America. I would be more than happy to admit I am wrong if something he does works out better for us all, not just some of us.
I notice you did not admit anything about yourself and then just proceded to bring something off topic up about me in an attempt to make fun of me to make your opinion and yourself seem better. You did exactly what I said you do.

And I like to think America lost, not just me. But time will tell and I would rather America win than I be right. Can you say the same thing?
  #90  
Old 11-14-2012, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
I don't want the government to give me anything but a national healthcare system like the rest of the fucking world has. You DO realize America is NOT number 1 when it comes to their healthcare system, correct? There IS a reason for that.
The problem lies in that there are too many people who say the same thing, but they all want something different. As a result, we have way too many programs costing way too much money and in most cases the people who want something are not the ones paying for it.

America is #1 in leading the world for news drugs and research and development of how to solve healthcare issues. Did you know that? Example: AZT (AIDS drug) was invented in the USA. Why was it not invented elsewhere? Because our system of healthcare makes it possible.
  #91  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondgirl View Post
Well l know l am a aussie but it is true you have to see what Obama does this time around and see if things do improve

Plus you have more republicans in certain seats in congress

So isnt it hard for a president to get things passed when you have to go through so many people

if it was ony him it would be a diffrent story
That would mean Obama would be a dictator. Not what America wants or needs.

I know what you are saying tho, Bondgirl.
  #92  
Old 11-14-2012, 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Socialism only occurs after a revolution? Nope.
Please, elaborate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Yeah and that framework has been smashed to bits.
Based on what? Because you say so? Please, sir, tell me how macroeconomics in the current global market functions that counters what I said previously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
So there is less government than there was 100 years ago? Prove it. If you can't then you don't know what you're talking about.
Since Reagan came into power there has been less and less government. Free markets have limited the power of the United States political sphere; globalization has captured each individual economy of the Western world into a tightly controlled network of capitalist regulations. Market fundamentalism has been the over-arching theme since the end of the Cold-War, and corporations now have more control over the economy than the United States president. America has become a corporate capitalist economic power, one that cannot be matched with politically.

Simple changes in your institutions do not evolve into a socialist nightmare. By lumping any movement to the left on the spectrum to equal socialism you're simplifying thousands of years of political understanding and discourse.

Shit, you'd argue the sky was red with how much you fear leftist politics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Yeah again resorting to pointless attacks to prove your point. "You're just misinformed because I said so." Oh yeah ok. "Right wing twats." Nice. Nothing further to discuss here when you resort to grade school language. Thanks for playing. Maybe that kind of language works in the school yard but not with political discourse.
You're calling me out on what I know about politics, economics and socialism, when you have yet to prove anything you say/said about the subjects. I'm open minded, dude; explain to me why you think socialism is an apparent threat to your country. Saying "more government" or "increased spending" are the root causes towards socialism are not valid answers.

Just don't bullshit me on what I know and learned about for the seven years of my academic career.
  #93  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:34 PM
Sorry I don't bother responding to someone who talks politics with that kind of language. Anybody who calls the other side 'twats' isn't going to be willing (or be willing long enough) to have an open honest discussion let alone is 'open minded'. If "calling you out" or whatever that means makes you resort to childish retorts then do or say whatever you want. I've seen it way too many times on other political message boards. The left gets frustrated starts resorting to name calling and it all falls apart from there. I've seen it all before. No offense just not worth my time.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-14-2012 at 09:40 PM..
  #94  
Old 11-14-2012, 09:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bondgirl View Post
Well l know l am a aussie but it is true you have to see what Obama does this time around and see if things do improve

Plus you have more republicans in certain seats in congress

So isnt it hard for a president to get things passed when you have to go through so many people

if it was ony him it would be a diffrent story
Bondgirl, there were more Democrats in certain seats in congress when everything went south with our economy.
  #95  
Old 11-15-2012, 01:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Bondgirl, there were more Democrats in certain seats in congress when everything went south with our economy.

Which time period that the democrats had more seats in congress did the economy go south? Was it during July 7, 2009 through August 12, 2009, or was it during September 25, 2009 - February 4, 2010? Or was it that one day in September when Republicans lost a seat?
  #96  
Old 11-15-2012, 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Which time period that the democrats had more seats in congress did the economy go south? Was it during July 7, 2009 through August 12, 2009, or was it during September 25, 2009 - February 4, 2010? Or was it that one day in September when Republicans lost a seat?
I find it interesting you didn't bother to correct Bondgirl if you think I'm wrong as well. If I'm wrong then she's wrong. If she's right than I'm right.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-15-2012 at 04:37 AM..
  #97  
Old 11-15-2012, 04:34 AM
Lets add it all up over the past 70 years up until 2010...

FDR (Dem) - Dem controlled House and Senate both terms

Harry Truman (Dem) - Dem controlled house and senate 6 out of 8 years (2 years Rep)

Dwight Eisenhower (Rep) - Dem controlled house and senate for 6 years (2 years Rep)

JFK (Dem) - Dem controlled house and senate until assignated which was 3 years

Lyndon Johnson (Dem) - Dem controlled house and senate for all 5 years

Nixon (Rep) - Dem controlled house and senate for all 6 years

Ford (Rep) - Dem controlled house and senate for 2 years

Carter (Dem) - Dem controlled house and senate for 4 years

Reagan (Rep) - Rep contolled seante for 6 years, dem controlled house all 8 years and senate 2

GHW Bush (Rep) - dems controlled house and senate all 4 years

Clinton (Dem) - dems controlled house and senate for 2 years (Rep 6 years)

GW Bush (Rep) - reps controlled house 6 years, senate 4 years (dems 2 house, 4 senate)

Obama (Dem) - Dems controlled house and senate 2 years


So lets add it all up. Since FDR:

Reps have held house for 16 years
Reps have held senate for 18 years

Dems have held the house for 62 years
Dems have held the senate for 60 years

Republican Presidents have had the house for 8 years and senate for 12.
Presidents with a D have had the house 27 years and senate for 34.

The President all the liberals like to hang their had on (Clinton) had a Republican House and Senate for 75% of his terms.

Argue the specific numbers all you want but its pretty clear the Democrats are not innocent. Both parties are to blame.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-15-2012 at 04:36 AM..
  #98  
Old 11-15-2012, 08:36 AM
Hmmm. Its the same situation in other countries where there are two major parties, they both become part of the same hypocrisy. They both get away with it by convincing the electorate that the superficial leader/patsy is solely to blame. But, how do we break away from that and install a systemic change. How will we agree on what that system should be when some are seemingly advocating pure communist principals, others are advocating a theocracy, and so on.
  #99  
Old 11-15-2012, 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Argue the specific numbers all you want but its pretty clear the Democrats are not innocent. Both parties are to blame.

....earlier that day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Bondgirl, there were more Democrats in certain seats in congress when everything went south with our economy.

Specific is as specific does.
  #100  
Old 11-15-2012, 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by electriclite View Post
....earlier that day.



Specific is as specific does.
I'm trying to compare her logic.

Quote:
Plus you have more republicans in certain seats in congress

So isnt it hard for a president to get things passed when you have to go through so many people
So then using that same logic then the same could be asked about Bush & the Democrats in 2007. I was also just talking to her being that I was quoting her. She should be able to speak for herself.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-15-2012 at 05:33 PM..
  #101  
Old 11-15-2012, 05:58 PM
Holy shit, did you just ask me why I didn't correct Bondgirl on her knowledge of the history of party control in the US House and Senate instead of just answering the question yourself!?

I asked you a straight up question. Bondgirl didn't say the economy tanked when the Dems controlled Congress, you did. When I asked you to clarify which period in the 4 or 5 months that the Dems had enough votes to be filibuster-proof, you asked why I didn't take a Bondgirl post to task -- A post that had nothing to do with my question.

But that's beside the point because now we're back to this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
The Democrats had control of Congress for about 4 months during Obama's presidency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Did anybody claim otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
No, not outwardly in this thread, I suppose not. I guess then that you're proposing democrat control of congress tanked the economy in 4 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Nope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Then what was the point in all this?

Creekin (paraphrased) "Democrats are to blame for a global economic collapse because they had a lot of control of congress!"

I mean, when you say "blame", because they had "a lot of control in Congress," what are you blaming them for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Democrats and Republicans but some just like to put the blame on just one party. You don't need a supermajority to get things done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Obama (Dem) - Dems controlled house and senate 2 years
Are you going to defer me to Bondgirl again?
  #102  
Old 11-15-2012, 08:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Holy shit, did you just ask me why I didn't correct Bondgirl on her knowledge of the history of party control in the US House and Senate instead of just answering the question yourself!?
Yes that shit is holy.

Quote:
I asked you a straight up question. Bondgirl didn't say the economy tanked when the Dems controlled Congress, you did. When I asked you to clarify which period in the 4 or 5 months that the Dems had enough votes to be filibuster-proof, you asked why I didn't take a Bondgirl post to task -- A post that had nothing to do with my question.
No I didn't say they controlled congress for "all" the years. If you notice some other years I included the word "all". Within those 2 years they had significant control (1/5th of the time of filibuster proof is big enough as opposed to zero the Republicans had). And yes it has everything to do with your question because it was a response to her question.

Quote:
But that's beside the point because now we're back to this...

Are you going to defer me to Bondgirl again?
Yes.

Quote:
Plus you have more republicans in certain seats in congress

So isnt it hard for a president to get things passed when you have to go through so many people
Quote:
Bondgirl, there were more Democrats in certain seats in congress when everything went south with our economy.
She's asking its difficult for Obama with "certain Republican seats" but never thought to ask herself if it was difficult for Bush with "certain Democrat seats" or whatever that means. Maybe she needs to ask herself different questions. Again if your going to ask a question about how its difficult for a president to do something because there's "a lot of seats" from the Republicans now then why not ask the same question when there was "a lot of seats" from the Democrats back in 2007? Seems to me that whatever the Republicans do come under extreme scrutiny from her but if the same scenario of "a lot of seats" was reversed its completely forgotten.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-15-2012 at 09:40 PM..
  #103  
Old 11-15-2012, 10:11 PM
Anyway I'm getting sick of looking like I'm defending the Republicans. It seems like anytime someone mentions one party or another as being the main culprit I have to point out what their party does wrong or just or just about as guilty of doing. Then when I do people think I'm a Republican or Democrat. Being that this board seems mostly Democrat I bet I'm pretty sure I'm coming across as being a Republican.

Its the reason why we can't get past one party system we have. If someone defends the faults of their party, 3rd party members (or people who want to be 3rd party) try to convince them the Democrats are really bad or the Republicans are really bad. Then you come across as being a Democrat or Republican aka the enemy in their eyes when all you're trying to do is convince them the lesser of two evils is still evil. Buying and spending our country to give it an extra 10 years isn't going to mean much to the next generation. So anyway they probably think you're secretly Republican or Democrat no matter what you say so they remain defending their party because its "anything to not let those Dems or Reps into office." Maybe eventually it will sink in for them but chances are it won't.

In many way the Republicans are worse than Democrats. Most promise smaller government and less spending but if they do that its political suicide for them so they end up being lying two faced assholes so they can get reelected. Democrats at least are a little more up front with their purpose (who's policies I am completely against). Aside from a few libertarian leaning Republicans like Ron Paul (and to a lesser degree Gary Johnson) in the party, there are about 7 or 8 Dick Cheneys. It's just like trading in one group of Big Government clowns for another.

So take out up front honesty Democrats and the Libertarian leaning Republicans. Both parties are basically the same to me. Its like I don't know what's worse someone stabbing me in the back or in the front. Either way I don't want to get fucking stabbed.
  #104  
Old 11-17-2012, 08:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Sorry I don't bother responding to someone who talks politics with that kind of language. Anybody who calls the other side 'twats' isn't going to be willing (or be willing long enough) to have an open honest discussion let alone is 'open minded'. If "calling you out" or whatever that means makes you resort to childish retorts then do or say whatever you want. I've seen it way too many times on other political message boards. The left gets frustrated starts resorting to name calling and it all falls apart from there. I've seen it all before. No offense just not worth my time.
You could have just said "I concede".
  #105  
Old 11-17-2012, 09:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
You could have just said "I concede".
Typical. :shakes head:
  #106  
Old 11-17-2012, 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
I've seen it way too many times on other political message boards. The left gets frustrated starts resorting to name calling and it all falls apart from there. I've seen it all before. No offense just not worth my time.
That is the liberal way, my friend.
  #107  
Old 11-17-2012, 01:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
That is the liberal way, my friend.
Yep I know.
  #108  
Old 11-17-2012, 01:51 PM
Its like trying to have an open discussion about racism to someone who says the 'N' word all day long. There's no way you're going to have an honest open discussion with someone who says the other side are 'twats'. I mean seriously. At least I can take some comfort in the fact he can't legally vote in this country.
  #109  
Old 11-17-2012, 05:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
Its like trying to have an open discussion about racism to someone who says the 'N' word all day long. There's no way you're going to have an honest open discussion with someone who says the other side are 'twats'. I mean seriously. At least I can take some comfort in the fact he can't legally vote in this country.
I feel like we have similar political views from what I have read from your posts, but yeah some of liberals are just as bad as bigoted conservatives when it comes to name calling and prejudice.
  #110  
Old 11-17-2012, 05:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieMaster View Post
Sure thing comrade
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
  #111  
Old 11-17-2012, 06:22 PM




"SPEND MORE SPEND MORE!!!"

Last edited by creekin111; 11-17-2012 at 06:26 PM..
  #112  
Old 11-17-2012, 06:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
"SPEND MORE SPEND MORE!!!"
Yeah except nobody's calling for that.
  #113  
Old 11-17-2012, 06:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderStorm View Post
I feel like we have similar political views from what I have read from your posts, but yeah some of liberals are just as bad as bigoted conservatives when it comes to name calling and prejudice.
Thanks and I agree.

And if he thinks I 'concede' then by that logic then that means any African American who refuses to talk race issues with a KKK member or white supremacist that means they're conceding that whites are the superior race. No its because there's no way it can possibly lead to an open discussion.
  #114  
Old 11-17-2012, 06:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Yeah except nobody's calling for that.
So everyone's calling for to cut (let alone end) Medicare, medicaid, free healthcare to illegals, the FDA, Obamacare etc.? Nope, not even close. But yeah lets keep supporting these programs that make everyone less and less price conscious.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-17-2012 at 06:42 PM..
  #115  
Old 11-17-2012, 08:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111
"SPEND MORE SPEND MORE!!!"
Quote:
CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of $1,168 billion over the 2012–2022 period—compared with $1,252 billion projected in March 2012 for that 11-year period—for a net reduction of $84 billion.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472

Quote:
What Is the Impact of Repealing the ACA on the Federal Budget?

...would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2013–2022 period
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

Since health care reform actually reduces the deficit compared to before, who wants to spend more here?
  #116  
Old 11-17-2012, 11:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by someguy View Post
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43472



http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

Since health care reform actually reduces the deficit compared to before, who wants to spend more here?
Increasing demand will not decrease costs. It's impossible, despite what those advocating a centrally controlled economy tell you.

There's always unintended consequences with government bills like this. Always. After 70 years of massive government intervention in the health care market it IS a disaster. Mr. Obama's massive health care law only adds more fuel to the fire. We should be getting government out of the way and allowing the market to correct itself so prices accurately reflect supply and demand, not distorting the market with even more arcane Washington gobbledygook.

Mandating individuals to purchase health care is a cost to individuals. It may be all well for the collective for a short time but to think that it will actually lower costs especially in the long term is simply not true. Sure if you raised taxes to 90% on everybody that'll cut the deficit too won't help out the economy none and sure won't address the source of the deficit problem in the end which is spending. Just call it an air tax to breathe in this country, which it basically is. Oh, I HAVE to buy something from a company or I get fined, er "taxed"? Yeah that's swell for the grown adult capable of managing his/her own finances. Just wait until that tax starts hitting people there's no telling how bad its going to be for the economy except that it will be bad and have a negative impact.

I have no problem with a man being able to keep his cash. So let's end the Bush/Obama wars (and they have now become partially his for better or for worse, nevermind Libya and Yemen), stop the bank and car company bailouts, stop the mortgage bailouts and put legitimate age adjustments into Social Security while giving YOUNGER Americans the OPTION of cutting their losses and opting out. Those are some of the biggest ways government can save money. There are MANY others. There is ZERO need to raise taxes. None. Nadda. Zip. Instead the government only finds new ways to spend money and people wonder why we're getting progressively poor.

How can you control costs when you refuse to even acknowledge out of control spending in just about every area of government? People think things like healthcare are in a bubble completely not directly or indirectly effected by the millions of other things the government has its greasy hands on. Again its solving solutions for past solutions for other past solutions and so forth. The government always has a horrible track record when it comes to intervention like Obamacare.

HCR is a Trojan Horse designed to get us to single payer. We've had single payer for those 65 and older and now people actually want to make our system like Medicare and apply to all? ObamaCare cuts Medicare’s reimbursement in order to cover 30 million additional Americans who lack coverage. In the end it either rations care or spend far out of control. The biggest reason behind most of complaints about our healthcare system is you have 70 years of the very government interference you now want more of. You're trying to put out a house fire with a hose full of gasoline.
  #117  
Old 11-18-2012, 12:01 AM
So anyway let's summarize...

1) Government continues to artificially flood even more money into the health care market through subsidies and tax breaks than otherwise would normally be spent by consumers in a free market.

2) Government continues to encourage employers to offer broad umbrella insurance coverage through tax breaks, subsidies, and mandates which leaves more covered people less cost-conscious about their doctor and treatment choices since somebody else is picking up the tab.

3) Now government mandates that all insurance companies must cover anybody who asks to join regardless of pre-existing conditions. That means even if an insurer knows a person will end up costing them money (and sometimes A LOT of money), that person must be covered.

4) Now government is mandating that ALL Americans must purchase insurance thereby artificially flooding even more money into the health care market and turning those remaining Americans that tried to be cost-conscious with their health care dollars into big spenders because once again somebody else is picking up the tab.

And, of course, this all plays into the left wing's hands because pushing the market completely out of control where prices are through the roof, leaves people thinking that the only final resort is for government to take over. And once that happens, the problem (created by the very people that now offer the government solution) will seem like it's been solved but in reality will cost more than ever! The only difference will be people won't notice it as much since it will simply be lumped in as part of their overall tax bill where it will be given the same attention that all government waste gets today - a mildly disturbed shrug followed by a demand for even more waste at the voting booth. Oh, and when government does eventually take over health care, you can also say goodbye to innovation. And also say goodbye to any remaining health privacy you had.

As for the subject of rationing that only takes place when a central body (the government) controls all distribution. Beyond that, goods and services are determined by market prices. Obviously, in such a situation, some people can afford more than others. But that's not rationing. That's just life.

And no, my two points do not conflict with each other at all. Government run health care will be the most expensive because it will be run incredibly inefficiently and artificially flood the market with dollars that otherwise would not be spent in such a way. That already overprice $200 IV banana bag will instead cost $500. But, of course, few people will pay attention to the cost because few people will have the incentive to do so. Eventually, they'll try to impose price caps but all that will do is drive businesses - from drug makers to doctors - out of the industry and cause less people to seek a career in the industry thus lowering supply and raising prices even more. Finally, the government will acknowledge that it can't pay for every thing for every body and will begin rationing care with the final decisions on how much and what kind of care you get eventually made not by you but by some government bureaucrat(s).

With government taking over, you can say goodbye to innovation and privacy. I know some don't want to acknowledge these realities because they tarnish their left-wing dogma that health care should some how be a right for everybody but it is what it is.

In 1810 if you got cancer, you went home. You went to bed. Your family kept you as comfortable as possible, and you died. There was no chemotherapy. If you were in kidney failure, the same drill applied. There was no dialysis. Health care didn't soak up much of people's budgets because there wasn't much of it. Today, we have a lot of equipment and a lot of medications. We can treat many diseases, and our abilities are growing rapidly. The cost of health care will continue to rise, and the value of it (more curable diseases) will continue to rise. We're not paying more and more for the same thing. We're paying more and more for a broader and broader array of increasingly effective treatments. What is government going to do to stop that? I'd guess nothing, yet one of the principal justifications for the law that was enacted was that government would bring costs down. The idea of government making anything more efficient is pretty laughable; the idea that they'll be able to pay less and less for larger and larger quantities of a rapidly improving service is just insane.

Those people in 1810 also didn't have cars, tvs, refrigerators, computers, ipads, cell phones, or air conditioners soaking up their budgets either. Healthcare developments should be no different, except that the end user of medical technology (the patient) doesn't pay for it himself, so the supply/demand dynamic, which determines price, is violated.

With new technologies, here's how it always goes:

Company A invents a new product. At first prices are high as it has no competition, and it is seeking to recoup its investment. Only the wealthy can afford this product.

Then company b copies company a's idea. Now these two companies must compete on quality AND price. This puts downward pressure on prices. When companies c and d get into the game, prices are pushed lower. Now the product can be afforded by more people.

Now that companies a, b, c and d have experience producing these products, they become more efficient at production, and can lower their costs, and in turn, lower their prices. They're still profitable and even more people can afford the product.

This has happened with cars, tvs, personal computers, you name it. It should be exactly the same with health care, except for interference with supply and demand (insurance pays for things, the patients do not directly pay themselves, so there's no need for doctors or manufacturers of health care products to compete aggressively on price), doctors overusing certain technologies to avoid lawsuits, patent laws and the FDA delaying drugs and competition for those drugs from hitting the market.

It should also be noted that the above is why profits are so important and not evil like many would have you believe.

Even so taking out the profit motif, charities have long existed to provide basic care for the truly needy. Doctors (including Ron Paul) often devote part of their practice to providing basic care for those that cannot afford it. There's actually a very strong western tradition of doctors offering discounts and payment plans even to those they do eventually charge when those patients don't have a lot of money. So it's not really a choice between "equal care for all" and leaving a portion of the population to rot in ditches. Even the worst off usually end up with basic care in a purely market system.

Last edited by creekin111; 11-18-2012 at 03:09 AM..
  #118  
Old 11-18-2012, 08:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by creekin111 View Post
There's no way you're going to have an honest open discussion with someone who says the other side are 'twats'. I mean seriously.
It's hard to have an "open discussion" with someone who won't elaborate on their points.

If we're pointing out typicalities, it's usual for the right to feign wounds to get out of a discussion they can't argue. Since creek wasn't providing any substantial counterpoints even before I started using "childish retorts", your reason for ending the debate is conciliatory.

Political discussions get heated and often generalizations are used. If you're hurt and left our discussion because I have insulted you, I apologize. To be honest, you've tickled my academic curiosity and I'm quite interested at picking your brain on why/how you think socialism is coming to America. However, if my observation above is correct (feigning wounds), then I'll merely shrug my shoulders and call it a day.
  #119  
Old 11-18-2012, 08:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
It's hard to have an "open discussion" with someone who won't elaborate on their points.

If we're pointing out typicalities, it's usual for the right to feign wounds to get out of a discussion they can't argue. Since creek wasn't providing any substantial counterpoints even before I started using "childish retorts", your reason for ending the debate is conciliatory.

Political discussions get heated and often generalizations are used. If you're hurt and left our discussion because I have insulted you, I apologize. To be honest, you've tickled my academic curiosity and I'm quite interested at picking your brain on why/how you think socialism is coming to America. However, if my observation above is correct (feigning wounds), then I'll merely shrug my shoulders and call it a day.
He has. You completely disregard his points. You the other hand, do not do anything to elaborate your opinion and just bash his and others opinions that differ from your own. It it time for you to belly up to the bar and start answering and stop asking. 2 or 3 sentence replies are not working anymore. You can't make your points by just bashing others.
  #120  
Old 11-18-2012, 08:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
I look at your chart and it means nothing. What is it based on? I would like to point out a few things. Culture counts and the USA is the worst country when it comes to culture eating. That is why we have so many fat people. While culture may count against us, it does not mean we as a country have bad health care. I am some of betting the European countries are going to drop like rocks on that list with many countries having fiscal issues, cuts will be made, people will work harder and longer like here in the USA and people's health will suffer.

Lastly, I am willing to agree the USA has a bad health care system and that is why we rank so low, if you can agree the reason we are so low on education ranking lists is because we have gone from focusing on the three R's to all this liberal crap new education.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump