Re: Health care reform bill and competition
Anarcissie
<nhoj-FB396C.0...@news.supernews.com>,
John Stafford <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
> In article <pan.2009.11...@erkonx.net>,
> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0800, tooly wrote:
> >
> > > Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with government
> > > subsidized plan.
> >
> > In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>
> To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>
> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
> to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
> level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
> premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
Since I read that the "health care bill" (which is
about medical care and insurance, not health, but
never mind that now) is over 1000 pages long, I must
hesitate to even guess what it will do or is supposed
to do. However, in regard to medical insurance
reaching levels at which its price can no longer be
raised, I think that has already happened -- 40 or 50
million people cannot or will not buy medical
insurance, and the number of people outside the system
is rising. The obvious solution is to use government
power to force them to buy, and in those cases where
the targets are too poor to extract money from,
extract money in their name from others. The medical
care system can then resume its growth up to the point
where it destroys the economy it feeds on.
> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well, the
> insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare what
> you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line item. You
> pay insurance companies more than branches of the government.) All
> insurance companies behave in very similar ways. They are a united and
> huge player behind domestic power. If not reined in they will have far
> too much power than our Republic can risk.
Corporation-versus-government is a false opposition.
They are both branches of the state. The one is
not going to "rein in" the other; they are going to
support one another, as they are doing to account
for the poor management of the financial system
which caused the "meltdown" and the current
"recession" (I'd call 10.2% something else.)
> The current administration is reining them in, making them _participate_
> in the economy they are exploiting.
>
> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility that once
> again we might have independent family practitioners and, can you
> imagine, House Calls? That's what lowered insurance premiums can permit.
> Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
There is no force available to lower them. The
people may have voted for change, but they got
more of the same, albeit with a different look and
a more urbane style.
Rod Speed
Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> The people may have voted for change, but they got more of the same,
Like hell they did with the compulsion to be insured and govt competition for the insurance industry.
> albeit with a different look and a more urbane style.
The difference is about a hell of a lot more than just look and style.
Werner
> ...
>
> > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
increases, large benefit cuts or both.
http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-security-and-medicare-projections-2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
----
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
http://www.investmentu.com/IUEL/2008/August/the-national-debt.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dp8ZmQMCtqA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSoXKapKQs&feature=related
tg
> On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> > Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> > numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> > its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> > on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> > they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
-tg
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlhttp://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
> The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> increases, large benefit cuts or both.http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
>
> Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
> anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
> fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
> paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
> ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims
>> when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> Since when can government anything cost less?
When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
Have a look at what the USPS charges to move a
letter to anywhere in the country or the world sometime.
Have a look at what the USPS charges to move media to
anywhere in the world sometime and compare that with
what UPS charges to move the same parcel sometime.
> Check out SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
Neither are bankrupt.
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
> The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> increases, large benefit cuts or both.
> http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-security-and-medicare-projections-2008
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
<reams of your drivel flushed where it belongs>
John Stafford
<857a6611-d1bd-4e6d...@v37g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Werner <whet...@mac.com> wrote:
> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
The government has been stealing from SS for decades!
AZDuffman
> Werner wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> >>> There is no force available to lower them.
> >> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
> >> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims
> >> when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
> >> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
> >> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> > Since when can government anything cost less?
>
> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
What planet are you on? The government invented paper shuffling.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Werner wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
>>>> claims when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it
>>>> wont need to spend much on advertising either when its premiums
>>>> dont need to be as high because they dont have those massive costs
>>>> of doing business.
>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> What planet are you on?
Same one you are on, unfortunately.
> The government invented paper shuffling.
Another pig ignorant lie. The roman catholic church did, fuckwit.
(David P.)
>
> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it
to happen. Again, the limits of election politics.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
> Again, the limits of election politics.
How odd that every other modern first and second world country has managed it fine.
(David P.)
> David P. wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Werner wrote
> >>> Since when can government anything cost less?
> >> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
> >> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
> > The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
>
> They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
>
> > Again, the limits of election politics.
>
The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected
if they pass a Euro-style system.
.
.
--
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Urine wrote
>>>>> Since when can government anything cost less?
>>>> When it doesnt have to have all those rooms full of paper shuffling
>>>> apes denying claims, and doesnt have to spend on advertising etc.
>>> The insurance, medical & pharma industry lobbies won't allow it to happen.
>> They get no say what so ever on that, you watch.
>>> Again, the limits of election politics.
>> How odd that every other modern first and second world country has managed it fine.
> The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected if they pass a Euro-style system.
They claimed that in every other modern first and second world country too.
They got re-elected fine when they did.
(David P.)
> David Pee wrote
>
> > The lobbies told the pols they won't be re-elected if
> > they pass a Euro-style system.
>
> They got re-elected fine when they did.
Doesn't matter. When you're at the top of the heap,
you can afford to have stupid clowns driving the bus.
.
.
--
Werner
> On Nov 10, 1:00 pm, Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > > > Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> > > > There is no force available to lower them.
>
> > > Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> > > numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> > > its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> > > on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> > > they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> > Since when can government anything cost less? Check out SS and
> > Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>
> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
>
How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
> -tg
>
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlhttp://capitaldistr...
>
>
>
> > The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> > combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> > trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> > the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> > debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> > that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> > dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> > the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> > funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> > increases, large benefit cuts or both.http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...
>
> > Dollars in the common treasury are like fish in the common sea -
> > anyone who can will harvest to extinction. That is why socialism is
> > fundamentally corrupting and can not work. The Fed is making a lot of
> > paper fish. This is an illusion of wealth. The real fish are gone.
> > ----http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/how.shtml
> > Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
> > of others. http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtmlhttp://www.investmentu.co...
AZDuffman
TRANSLATION: Rod was made a jerk of yet again, by his statement that
government reduces paperwork, so all he can do is call names and use
foul language, as always.
Stevie Nichts
> > > In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>
> > To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>
> > To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
> > to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
> > level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
> > premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
But Congress forbids "market forces" from working, because
they won't allow health-care insurors to compete nationwide.
They're using that as their excuse to foist ObamaCare
'competition' on us.
> However, in regard to medical insurance
> reaching levels at which its price can no longer be
> raised, I think that has already happened -- 40 or 50
> million people cannot or will not buy medical
> insurance, and the number of people outside the system
> is rising. � The obvious solution is to use government
> power to force them to buy, and in those cases where
> the targets are too poor to extract money from,
> extract money in their name from others. �The medical
> care system can then resume its growth up to the point
> where it destroys the economy it feeds on.
Either that, or government will ration health care
-- oh, wait, they already do: see Medicare.
Stevie Nichts
> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend much
> on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high because
> they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
Just like Medicare, right? How's that working? Oh, right:
it's going broke, rapidly, and doctors are bailing in ever-
increasing numbers as Congress keeps cutting their
reimbursements. Demand is outstripping supply. And
ObamaCare won't be any different.
What happens when the demand for health-care services
exceeds the supply? We could look to England, where
health-care rationing is a fact of life. Hell, just look at
Massachusetts, which already has a 'public option'
plan called Massachusetts Connector. How's that
working out? It's already deep in debt and premiums
are skyrocketing, and waiting periods to see physicians
have grown.
And the inconvenient questions still remain.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 10, 11:46�am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
>> numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
>> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend
>> much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high
>> because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> Just like Medicare, right? How's that working? Oh, right: it's going
> broke, rapidly, and doctors are bailing in ever- increasing numbers as
> Congress keeps cutting their reimbursements. Demand is outstripping
> supply. And ObamaCare won't be any different.
Oh, yeah. It's had trouble ever since the GOP "reform", which mandated
that they must pay whatever the pharmaceuticals wanted them to pay on
drugs, without negotiation or bidding.
Funny how a government program can run into trouble when it's set up by
people who want it to fail.
That you're fucking over the American people in the process is something
you dirtbags just hope won't get noticed, right?
>
> What happens when the demand for health-care services exceeds the
> supply? We could look to England, where health-care rationing is a fact
> of life. Hell, just look at Massachusetts, which already has a 'public
> option' plan called Massachusetts Connector. How's that working out?
> It's already deep in debt and premiums are skyrocketing, and waiting
> periods to see physicians have grown.
Most Brits are perfectly satisfied with National Health, and while not
perfect, works far better than the fiasco American have to deal with.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
That government has bureaucracy is beyond dispute, but major corporations
are far worse.
Social Security runs on 1% administrative overhead. I defy you to point
to any private pension fund that comes within an order of magnitude of
that level of efficiency.
John Galt
Social Security is heading towards insolvency. You may wish to find a
better example.
Efficiency leading to insolvency is nothing to crow about.
JG
Phlip
> Social Security is heading towards insolvency. You may wish to find a
> better example.
How about SS under Clinton?
John Galt
How about it? SS has been careening towards insolvency since the birth
rate crashed in the 70's. What does Clinton have to do with it?
JG
AZDuffman
wrote:
> That government has bureaucracy is beyond dispute, but major corporations
> are far worse.
>
> Social Security runs on 1% administrative overhead. I defy you to point
> to any private pension fund that comes within an order of magnitude of
> that level of efficiency.- Hide quoted text -
Not a valid comparrison. SS only invests in government bonds and just
collects and cuts checks. Corporate pensions must hire professionals
to seek the best rate of return.
A better comparrison is apply for a government job. See how many
forms you must fill out just to get considered vs. applying for a
private sector job.
AZDuffman
It was still heading towards insolvency, just as it has been for
years. Bush had the only good idea out there-let people put a portion
of their contibutions into a private account and get a better rate of
return, and let them pass that private portion along to their heirs.
Rod Speed
> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
>>>> claims when
>>>> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
>>>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
>>>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing
>>>> business.
>>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
>>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
> How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
Rod Speed
Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.
Rod Speed
> On Nov 10, 10:17?am, Anarcissie <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>>
>>> To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>>
>>> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is
>>> headed to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it
>>> will hit a level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an
>>> inability to pay premiums - then market forces will kick in to
>>> stabilize it.
>
> But Congress forbids "market forces" from working, because
> they won't allow health-care insurors to compete nationwide.
> They're using that as their excuse to foist ObamaCare
> 'competition' on us.
>
>> However, in regard to medical insurance
>> reaching levels at which its price can no longer be
>> raised, I think that has already happened -- 40 or 50
>> million people cannot or will not buy medical
>> insurance, and the number of people outside the system
>> power to force them to buy, and in those cases where
>> the targets are too poor to extract money from,
>> care system can then resume its growth up to the point
>> where it destroys the economy it feeds on.
>
> Either that, or government will ration health care
> -- oh, wait, they already do: see Medicare.
Corse no insurance company ever rations health care, eh ?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims
>> when its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> Just like Medicare, right? How's that working?
Very well indeed. And the VA system in spades.
> Oh, right: it's going broke, rapidly,
Bare faced lie.
> and doctors are bailing in ever-increasing numbers
> as Congress keeps cutting their reimbursements.
Another bare faced lie.
> Demand is outstripping supply.
Another bare faced lie.
> And ObamaCare won't be any different.
Another bare faced lie. Its nothing like medicare, fool.
> What happens when the demand for health-care services exceeds the supply?
We get more doctors and the existing doctors work more hours.
> We could look to England, where health-care rationing is a fact of life.
Just like it is in the american insurance system. Funny that.
> Hell, just look at Massachusetts, which already has a 'public option'
> plan called Massachusetts Connector. How's that working out?
Better than without it.
> It's already deep in debt and premiums are skyrocketing,
Another bare faced lie.
> and waiting periods to see physicians have grown.
Corse nothing like that ever happens with the insurance system, eh ?
> And the inconvenient questions still remain.
Only in your pathetic little drug crazed fantasyland.
Rod Speed
Not because of that dramatically lower admin overhead it aint.
> You may wish to find a better example.
No need.
> Efficiency leading to insolvency
Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasys.
Michael Coburn
> In article
> <nhoj-FB396C.0...@news.supernews.com>,
> John Stafford <nh...@droffats.ten> wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2009.11...@erkonx.net>,
>> ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:18:38 -0800, tooly wrote:
>> >
>> > > Private Insurance companies will not be able to compete with
>> > > government subsidized plan.
>> >
>> > In this "government subsidized plan", where do the subsidies go?
>>
>> To us, the taxpayers. Gee, what a concept, eh? :)
>>
>> To a new point. The increasing cost/rate of health insurance is headed
>> to catastrophic levels. One might think the obvious: that it will hit a
>> level in which it must stop rising, or fall, due to an inability to pay
>> premiums - then market forces will kick in to stabilize it.
>
> Since I read that the "health care bill" (which is about medical care
> and insurance, not health, but never mind that now) is over 1000 pages
> long, I must hesitate to even guess what it will do or is supposed to
> do.
Actually it is now 2000 pages long because of attempting to mollify the
rightarded.
> However, in regard to medical insurance reaching levels at which
> its price can no longer be raised, I think that has already happened --
> 40 or 50 million people cannot or will not buy medical insurance, and
> the number of people outside the system is rising.
This is true. Shifting the cost of indigent care through insurance
companies and employers has so bloated premiums that the working class
can not afford to use the insurance system.
> The obvious
> solution is to use government power to force them to buy, and in those
> cases where the targets are too poor to extract money from, extract
> money in their name from others.
That is essentially true. There is no other actual solution.
> The medical care system can then
> resume its growth up to the point where it destroys the economy it feeds
> on.
Nope! That is what the monopsony power of a combined Medicare and Public
Option is all about. At present the providers shift any attempt at cost
control to the individual insurance companies and they pass that cost to
the employers who pass it to the employees. If there is a significant
participation in a public option added to the current 40 million Medicare
consumers the cost sifting will create an intolerable situation for the
consumers. Hence, the insurance companies must join with the Medicare
and Public Option people in controlling cost or they will go tits up.
The Republican stupidity play will be to point at the cost shifting as
evidence that government doesn't work screeching that Medicare is the
problem. You have to be a totally brain damaged ignoramus to swallow
that, but that is what Republicans are.
>> Accepting that for the moment, what happens in the _meantime_? Well,
>> the insurance companies have more money than the government. (Compare
>> what you pay for health insurance against any other single tax line
>> item. You pay insurance companies more than branches of the
>> government.) All insurance companies behave in very similar ways. They
>> are a united and huge player behind domestic power. If not reined in
>> they will have far too much power than our Republic can risk.
>
> Corporation-versus-government is a false opposition. They are both
> branches of the state. The one is not going to "rein in" the other;
Ah yes.... The moronic conception of government as "The State" and
analogous to an unelected multinational corporation. The lie that keeps
on giving.
> they are going to support one another, as they are doing to account for
> the poor management of the financial system which caused the "meltdown"
> and the current "recession" (I'd call 10.2% something else.)
Yes... The Republican party screwed the pooch just as they did 1n the
1920's. They allowed the financial sector to run wild and the greed
destroyed the economy.
>> The current administration is reining them in, making them
>> _participate_ in the economy they are exploiting.
>>
>> And for those who cry fair market - consider the possibility that once
>> again we might have independent family practitioners and, can you
>> imagine, House Calls? That's what lowered insurance premiums can
>> permit. Is that not a sign of a healthy market?
>
> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered. There is no force
> available to lower them.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Government monopsony power will lower the cost of health care and the
insurance companies can participate or go tits up. You are simply blind
to this fact because of your anarchical religious bent.
> The people may have voted for change, but they
> got more of the same, albeit with a different look and a more urbane
> style.
The people gave yet to GET anything at all. The next few weeks _MAY_
produce something. We will see.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
Werner
> Werner wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> >>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
> >>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the
> >>>> vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny
> >>>> claims when
> >>>> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to
> >>>> spend much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be
> >>>> as high because they dont have those massive costs of doing
> >>>> business.
> >>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
> >>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
> >> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
> > How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
>
> There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
>
>
This isn't ww2. But I'm beginning to wonder if ww3 will soon begin to
get out of bankruptcy or complete catastrophe. You might entertain
that notion as well.
Phlip
If the HMOs would stop bankrupting us, we would free up some revenue (_not_
taxes) to help gov't out too.
Werner, you have a big tick sucking blood out of you, growing larger by the day,
and you are defending it instead of getting rid of it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Werner wrote
>>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
>>>> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
>>>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
>>>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont
>>>>>> need the vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are
>>>>>> used to deny claims when its essentially the insurer of last
>>>>>> resort, and it wont need to spend much on advertising either
>>>>>> when its premiums dont need to be as high because they
>>>>>> dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>>>>> Since when can government anything cost less? Check out
>>>>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
>>>> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
>>> How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
>> There is no bankrupt govt. The national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
> This isn't ww2.
Irrelevant, the govt clearly isnt bankrupt when the national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
> But I'm beginning to wonder if ww3 will soon begin
> to get out of bankruptcy or complete catastrophe.
Nope, there wont be any ww3, nukes have eliminated that possibility now.
We just do similar federal govt spending without the world war now.
> You might entertain that notion as well.
I'm not that stupid.
AZDuffman
Insurance companies don't ration. If you are covered by the policy
you choose they pay. Single-payer systems ration. Which is why
Canadians come to the USA for faster, better care.
Phlip
> Insurance companies don't ration. If you are covered by the policy
> you choose they pay.
What an incredibly ignorant assertion. The majority of the medical-related
bankruptcies in the USA were due to HMO "recisions". That's where they take your
money until you file a claim, then decide to cancel your policy due to a typo or
whatever.
Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
Rod Speed
> Insurance companies don't ration.
Another bare faced lie, fool.
Phlip
> AZDuffman wrote
>>> Corse no insurance company ever rations health care, eh ?
>
>> Insurance companies don't ration.
>
> Another bare faced lie, fool.
The "Management" in "HMO" refers to managing costs by denying medical claims.
The entire point of HMOs is rationing...
AZDuffman
Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
AZDuffman
Sort of. People get into HMOs by choice. They make the choice of
less selection in care for a cheaper price. (We will soon have the
less selection part under Obamacare without the cheaper price.) So if
you decide you want to save $100 of premium per month but have to stay
in-network, fine. You made that choice. But don't force the entire
nation to do the same.
Phlip
>> Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
>
> Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
Ah, so not only do the poor deserve to die in the street, but so does the middle
class...
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>> Corse no insurance company ever rations health care, eh ?
>>> Insurance companies don't ration.
>> Another bare faced lie, fool.
> The "Management" in "HMO"
There is no Management in HMO
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMO
> refers to managing costs by denying medical claims.
Another bare faced lie.
> The entire point of HMOs is rationing...
Another bare faced lie.
Les Cargill
>
>
> Insurance companies don't ration.
Ah, but they do. Preexisting conditions, redlining happen.
> If you are covered by the policy
> you choose they pay. Single-payer systems ration. Which is why
> Canadians come to the USA for faster, better care.
--
Les Cargill
Werner
Seems to me those blood suckers are going to be forced on you by
decree. Good luck with that.
John Galt
Kind of an odd perspective where the government is seen as anything
*but* a bloodsucker.
Where the hell does this "wonderful perfect government" fantasy come from?
JG
Stevie Nichts
wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:29:27 -0800, Stevie Nichts wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 11:46 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont need the vast
> >> numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are used to deny claims when
> >> its essentially the insurer of last resort, and it wont need to spend
> >> much on advertising either when its premiums dont need to be as high
> >> because they dont have those massive costs of doing business.
>
> > broke, rapidly, and doctors are bailing in ever- increasing numbers as
> > Congress keeps cutting their reimbursements. Demand is outstripping
> > supply. And ObamaCare won't be any different.
>
> Oh, yeah. It's had trouble ever since the GOP "reform", which mandated
> that they must pay whatever the pharmaceuticals wanted them to pay on
> drugs, without negotiation or bidding.
I'd ask you to explain, with cites, but I know that's not your bag.
> Funny how a government program can run into trouble when it's set up by
> people who want it to fail.
LBJ wanted Medicare to fail?
> > What happens when the demand for health-care services exceeds the
> > supply? We could look to England, where health-care rationing is a fact
> > of life. Hell, just look at Massachusetts, which already has a 'public
> > option' plan called Massachusetts Connector. How's that working out?
> > It's already deep in debt and premiums are skyrocketing, and waiting
> > periods to see physicians have grown.
>
> Most Brits are perfectly satisfied with National Health
Again, I'd ask for cites, but... (shrug)
Stevie Nichts
> > Either that, or government will ration health care
> > -- oh, wait, they already do: see Medicare.
>
> Corse no insurance company ever rations health care, eh ?
I'd explain how the private market works, but it'd
just go over your head. At least you don't bother
to deny that Medicare -- a single-payer system --
rations health care. So why do you want to
ration it for all Americans? And if it's so great,
why does Congress need to force everyone into
their plan?
John Galt
No, but it's worth talking about.
Any Brit of means also has private health insurance. It's relatively
inexpensive (60-100 bucks a month, normally) because it doesn't cover
stuff that is easily obtainable from the NHS, or stuff that isn't time
sensitive. It's there to pick up the ball when the NHS drops it.
The key point here is that even a fully socialized system like the NHS
doesn't change the fact that the rich have better access to care than
the poor. The disparity continues -- it's just that the bar moves up a
bit, so to speak.
JG
Stevie Nichts
> Stevie Nichts wrote
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> > Just like Medicare, right? How's that working?
> > Oh, right: it's going broke, rapidly,
>
> Bare faced lie.
----
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/devil-details/could-you-die-faster-medicares-broke/290/
May 15, 2009 -- The just-released Social Security trustees
report says that Medicare will be spending more than it
brings in this year. In less than a decade, the system
will have run through all of its savings and be incapable
of paying bills.
----
> > and doctors are bailing in ever-increasing numbers
> > as Congress keeps cutting their reimbursements.
>
> Another bare faced lie.
----
http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=5326078&pid=26
The Houston Chronicle reported last week that more and more Texas
doctors are opting out of Medicare due to growing cuts in
reimbursement. And the trend is not limited to Texas doctors.
Primary care doctors from around the country have told ABC News
that they too are either opting out of treating Medicare patients,
or are preparing to do so if Congress once again OKs slashing
reimbursement rates.
[...]
According to the American Medical Association (AMA),
reimbursements that have been reduced every year for nearly a
decade have slashed physician payment rates by about 40 percent.
Meanwhile, the cost of practice rises annually. The AMA estimates
that this year practice costs will increase by 20 percent.
----
> > Demand is outstripping supply.
>
> Another bare faced lie.
Hey, putz: I've just shown you up twice. So howzabout
you stop mouthing your mantra like a punch-drunk monkey
and bring some FACTS to the party? You think I'm
wrong? PROVE it, fool.
Stevie Nichts
> > Insurance companies don't ration. If you are covered by the policy
> > you choose they pay.
>
> What an incredibly ignorant assertion. The majority of the medical-related
> bankruptcies in the USA were due to HMO "recisions". That's where they take your
> money until you file a claim, then decide to cancel your policy due to a typo or
> whatever.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that's true. Since Congress
regulates
the health-care industry, how could those heartless bastards have let
this happen? Seriously. Can you prove ANY of your claims?
Michael Gordge
> Government monopsony power will lower the cost of health care and the
> insurance companies can participate or go tits up. You are simply blind
> to this fact because of your anarchical religious bent.
Hey ewe stupid cunt, if ewe dare, explain how a fucking parasite (any
and all employess of government departments including especially of
course the fucking politicians) explain who those fuckwits who steal
your dollar from you and who give only a small portion of that dollar
to health care workers who are not of your personal choice, for your
health care, explain how that dopey immoral irrational system works
out as a "lower cost" than ewe giving that same dollar directly to a
doctor of your choice for your health care and only when you need it.
MG
AZDuffman
I have yet to see anyone "dying in the streets."
Perhaps you live in a third world country?
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 1:14 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Insurance companies don't ration.
>
> Ah, but they do. Preexisting conditions, redlining happen.
Pre-existing conditions costing more to be covered is a simple
business decision. Does GEICO pay for the dent in your car that you
had before you got coverage? Hell no. That is so simple a caveman can
understand it.
AZDuffman
The rich have better access to lots of stuff. The answer isn't
Obamacare which will lower care levels for everyone.
John Galt
Not for all. Those that are not covered now, and want coverage, will be
better off. Standards will drop for the other 85% of the population, and
very quickly you'll see private clinics spring up to cater to the
well-off who can afford to pay.
JG
>
Beam Me Up Scotty
Resulting in Mediocrity of all health care..... Good job.
Poetic Justice
looking out my window, not even one dead body in the streets. I'll keep
an eye out and update the group when I see the dead piling up.
This government created health care crisis is all a hoax.
John Galt
JG
>
>
>
>
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > The rich have better access to lots of stuff. The answer isn't
> > Obamacare which will lower care levels for everyone.
>
> Not for all. Those that are not covered now, and want coverage, will be
> better off. Standards will drop for the other 85% of the population, and
> very quickly you'll see private clinics spring up to cater to the
> well-off who can afford to pay.
If they want coverage or care they can buy it. In fact, Obama will
throw you in jail if you don't buy premium coverage-forget your
hospitalization-only plan. And as to the private-clinics, wait until
there are lines because doctors retire and the clinics are forced to
take "all-comners."
Kill Obamacare and the public option before it kills us.
AZDuffman
wrote:
I thought I saw one on the way to work, but it was just a bum begging
for money instead of looking for work.
John Galt
I'd prefer to pass it. Obama's support that put him over the top was in
the youngest voting demographic; IOW, the very people who refuse their
employer's health care plan because they'd rather have a better Beamer.
He's about to lay a $2,000 tax on them that they never expected, because
during the campaign he said he'd do the exact opposite. That will
develop their political cynicism to the point that they'll do what youth
normally do during the next few elections (sit home) if not switch sides
altogether.
And, since no benefits on this deal are vetted until 2013, the GOP gets
to run on a single word platform in 2010 and 2012: REPEAL!.
But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public option
with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form a third
party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of the citizenry
self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to register as a reason why
they can't get their agenda passed); and if they pass it, the GOP will
be hypercharged and the young Obama voters disenchanted.
Sweet deal, as I see it.
JG
Phlip
Yas the adult children here must find someone on the playground to pick on.
Do you two feel all warm & glowing now?
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Stevie Nichts wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Just like Medicare, right? How's that working?
>>> Oh, right: it's going broke, rapidly,
>> Bare faced lie.
> http://moneywatch.bnet.com/saving-money/blog/devil-details/could-you-die-faster-medicares-broke/290/
> May 15, 2009 -- The just-released Social Security trustees report
> says that Medicare will be spending more than it brings in this year.
That aint going broke rapidly. And that result can obviously be changed too.
> In less than a decade, the system will have run through
> all of its savings and be incapable of paying bills.
The trustees report didnt say that, and thats not going broke RAPIDLY anyway.
So the original is a bare faced lie.
>>> and doctors are bailing in ever-increasing numbers
>>> as Congress keeps cutting their reimbursements.
>> Another bare faced lie.
> http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=5326078&pid=26
> The Houston Chronicle reported last week that more and more
> Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare due to growing cuts
> in reimbursement. And the trend is not limited to Texas doctors.
And that ignores the doctors who are starting practicing and are accepting medicare patients.
> Primary care doctors from around the country have told ABC News
> that they too are either opting out of treating Medicare patients,
> or are preparing to do so if Congress once again OKs slashing
> reimbursement rates.
And that *IF* is crucial.
So the original is a bare faced lie.
> According to the American Medical Association (AMA),
> reimbursements that have been reduced every year for nearly a
> decade have slashed physician payment rates by about 40 percent.
Just because the AMA claims something, doesnt make it gospel.
> Meanwhile, the cost of practice rises annually. The AMA estimates
> that this year practice costs will increase by 20 percent.
Another obvious lie.
>>> Demand is outstripping supply.
>> Another bare faced lie.
> Hey, putz: I've just shown you up twice.
Like hell you have, you silly little pathological liar.
> So howzabout you stop mouthing your mantra like a
> punch-drunk monkey and bring some FACTS to the party?
How odd that we aint seen even a single FACT from you, fuckwit.
> You think I'm wrong? PROVE it, fool.
YOU spewed those lies.
YOU get to prove those lies.
THATS how it works.
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 11:29 am, Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com>
> > wrote:
> >> AZDuffman wrote:
> >>> On Nov 11, 4:35 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> AZDuffman wrote:
> >>>>>> Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
> >>>>> Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
> >>>> Ah, so not only do the poor deserve to die in the street, but so does the middle
> >>>> class...
> >>> I have yet to see anyone "dying in the streets."
> >>> Perhaps you live in a third world country?
> >> looking out my window, not even one dead body in the streets. I'll keep
> >> an eye out and update the group when I see the dead piling up.
>
> > I thought I saw one on the way to work, but it was just a bum begging
> > for money instead of looking for work.
>
> Yas the adult children here must find someone on the playground to pick on.
>
Yes, I feel good though as a guy I don't "glow."
How about you PJ?
Poetic Justice
I like to think I glow..... but I am a manly man, so I'll settle for
just being called optimistic.
Rod Speed
>>> Either that, or government will ration health care
>>> -- oh, wait, they already do: see Medicare.
>> Corse no insurance company ever rations health care, eh ?
> I'd explain how the private market works, but it'd just go over your head.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> At least you don't bother to deny that Medicare
> -- a single-payer system -- rations health care.
> So why do you want to ration it for all Americans?
Because that is precisely what the current system does, fool.
> And if it's so great, why does Congress need to force everyone into their plan?
Because hordes of the young fit and healthy who dont have kids dont need health
insurance and if congress is actually stupid enough to extend the insurance system
instead of extending the single payer system, someone has to pay for the extra
medical services that the extended insurance system will be paying for.
The money has to come from somewhere.
Werner
I'm sure you know. When Peter is robbed to pay Paul, Paul gets the
fantasy.
Werner
> Werner wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> Werner wrote
> >>> tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >>>> Werner <whetz...@mac.com> wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>> Insurance premiums are not going to be lowered.
> >>>>>>> There is no force available to lower them.
> >>>>>> Wrong. The govt can have its own operation and that wont
> >>>>>> need the vast numbers of paper shuffling monkeys that are
> >>>>>> used to deny claims when its essentially the insurer of last
> >>>>>> resort, and it wont need to spend much on advertising either
> >>>>>> when its premiums dont need to be as high because they
> >>>>>> dont have those massive costs of doing business.
> >>>>> SS and Medicare. No real admin costs but still bankrupt.
> >>>> And how does this show that it doesn't cost less?
> >>> How much health care can an bankrupt government provide?
> > This isn't ww2.
>
> Irrelevant, the govt clearly isnt bankrupt when the national federal debt isnt even as high as it got to in WW2.
>
> > But I'm beginning to wonder if ww3 will soon begin
> > to get out of bankruptcy or complete catastrophe.
>
> Nope, there wont be any ww3, nukes have eliminated that possibility now.
>
> We just do similar federal govt spending without the world war now.
>
> > You might entertain that notion as well.
>
> I'm not that stupid.
>
>
Rod, when you win a war you make the rules. When you're bankrupt the
creditors make the rules. You may not have noticed. Geithner and
Clinton are going to China. The Chinese counterparts are not coming
here.
AZDuffman
> > And if it's so great, why does Congress need to force everyone into their plan?
>
> Because hordes of the young fit and healthy who dont have kids dont need health
> insurance and if congress is actually stupid enough to extend the insurance system
> instead of extending the single payer system, someone has to pay for the extra
> medical services that the extended insurance system will be paying for.
>
> The money has to come from somewhere.
So why not let it come from the people who will use the service?
Forcing people who don't need or want health insurnace is like saying
you have to buy the full breakfast buffet if yiou just want coffee so
the restaurant can make up for all the extra food a fat slob like Rod
Speed eats. The better solution is to price the product by use so
people can just buy what they need instead of forcing a buffet (full
plan) on them.
James A. Donald
wrote:
> Not for all. Those that are not covered now, and want coverage, will be
> better off. Standards will drop for the other 85% of the population, and
> very quickly you'll see private clinics spring up to cater to the
> well-off who can afford to pay.
A dual track system would in fact be pretty good. Unfortunately, what
we are getting is a one track system in which private health care is
incorporated into the state.
The best medical system in the world - not in quality of treatment,
but in value for money, is that of Singapore, which has the most
capitalist health care system in the world, and the most socialist
system outside of communist regimes.
In Singapore, the poor, the improvident, and the desperate, get
government medicine from government employed doctors at government
owned clinics. This considerably reduces the cost of government
medicine, since everyone involved is under full civil service controls
- you do not get lobbyists gaming the system. Meanwhile, the
genuinely free market, genuinely private medicine, is, unlike US
medicine, genuinely subject to market discipline, with the result that
is very cheap.
Rod Speed
> On Nov 12, 11:16 am, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AZDuffman wrote:
>
>>> The rich have better access to lots of stuff. The answer isn't
>>> Obamacare which will lower care levels for everyone.
>>
>> Not for all. Those that are not covered now, and want coverage, will
>> be better off. Standards will drop for the other 85% of the
>> population, and very quickly you'll see private clinics spring up to
>> cater to the well-off who can afford to pay.
>
> If they want coverage or care they can buy it. In fact, Obama will
> throw you in jail if you don't buy premium coverage-forget your
> hospitalization-only plan.
Another lie.
> And as to the private-clinics, wait until there are lines because
> doctors retire and the clinics are forced to take "all-comners."
Another lie.
> Kill Obamacare and the public option before it kills us.
Kill pathological liars.
John Galt
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:16:24 -0600, John Galt <kad...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Not for all. Those that are not covered now, and want coverage, will be
>> better off. Standards will drop for the other 85% of the population, and
>> very quickly you'll see private clinics spring up to cater to the
>> well-off who can afford to pay.
>
> A dual track system would in fact be pretty good. Unfortunately, what
> we are getting is a one track system in which private health care is
> incorporated into the state.
>
> The best medical system in the world - not in quality of treatment,
> but in value for money, is that of Singapore, which has the most
> capitalist health care system in the world, and the most socialist
> system outside of communist regimes.
Not surprising. I spend a good deal of time there. Love the place.
>
> In Singapore, the poor, the improvident, and the desperate, get
> government medicine from government employed doctors at government
> owned clinics. This considerably reduces the cost of government
> medicine, since everyone involved is under full civil service controls
> - you do not get lobbyists gaming the system. Meanwhile, the
> genuinely free market, genuinely private medicine, is, unlike US
> medicine, genuinely subject to market discipline, with the result that
> is very cheap.
Yep. But, don't say "free market" in the same sentence as "health care"
around these guys. They'll break out in a rash.
JG
>
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> And if it's so great, why does Congress need to force everyone into their plan?
>> Because hordes of the young fit and healthy who dont have kids
>> dont need health insurance and if congress is actually stupid
>> enough to extend the insurance system instead of extending the
>> single payer system, someone has to pay for the extra medical
>> services that the extended insurance system will be paying for.
>> The money has to come from somewhere.
> So why not let it come from the people who will use the service?
Essentially because those who arent currently covered by insurance
who will use the system, dont have the money to pay for their use
of the service, essentially because most of them cant work because
of their serious medical problem or the cost of the medical services
they need like with cancer etc are more than their work can pay for.
> Forcing people who don't need or want health insurnace is like saying you
> have to buy the full breakfast buffet if yiou just want coffee so the restaurant
> can make up for all the extra food a fat slob like Rod Speed eats.
Nothing like. The vast bulk of those young fit and healthy with no kids
will eventually end up nothing like as young fit and healthy and most of
them will end up with kids and then their health care will cost a lot more.
> The better solution is to price the product by use so people can just
> buy what they need instead of forcing a buffet (full plan) on them.
Not even possible with health care. Food is different, you never get into the situation
where the food you need to stop you from dying quickly can bankrupt you.
Rod Speed
>>> This isn't ww2.
Not the rules of economics you dont.
> When you're bankrupt the creditors make the rules.
The US aint bankrupt any more than it was at the end of WW2.
> You may not have noticed.
I have noticed that the US aint bankrupt any more than it was at the end of WW2.
> Geithner and Clinton are going to China. The Chinese counterparts are not coming here.
They have been in the US.
And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They wont be stupid enough to pull the
plug on the US because they know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
Rod Speed
> John Galt <kad...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Those that are not covered now, and want coverage,
>> will be better off. Standards will drop for the other 85%
>> of the population, and very quickly you'll see private clinics
>> spring up to cater to the well-off who can afford to pay.
> A dual track system would in fact be pretty good.
There is CURRENTLY a dual track system and its
pretty bad for those who dont qualify for either track.
> Unfortunately, what we are getting is a one track system
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> in which private health care is incorporated into the state.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
You are free to stick with your current health care arrangements if you are happy with them.
> The best medical system in the world - not in quality of
> treatment, but in value for money, is that of Singapore,
Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.
> which has the most capitalist health care system in the world,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> and the most socialist system outside of communist regimes.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> In Singapore, the poor, the improvident, and the desperate, get
> government medicine from government employed doctors at government
> owned clinics. This considerably reduces the cost of government
> medicine, since everyone involved is under full civil service controls
> - you do not get lobbyists gaming the system.
> Meanwhile, the genuinely free market, genuinely private medicine, is, unlike US
> medicine, genuinely subject to market discipline, with the result that is very cheap.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
James A. Donald
James A. Donald wrote
> > A dual track system would in fact be pretty good.
"Rod Speed"
> There is CURRENTLY a dual track system
American government medicine is lobbyist run, and American private
medicine is government run. For example, competition between
insurance companies is forbidden, and the plans offered by insurance
companies are determined by state governments on the basis of which
lobbyist offers the biggest contribution to have the services he is
lobbying for made free or low cost to the end user.
Because the price is determined by lobbyists at state capitals, rather
than the market place, prices are inordinately high.
> You are free to stick with your current health care arrangements if you are happy with them.
No you are not. All insurance schemes shall be equally gold plated,
and everyone must join such a scheme. This abolishes what little
market place medicine there is - it will eliminate the customer from
having any influence over the provision of medicine.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> James A. Donald wrote
>>> A dual track system would in fact be pretty good.
>> There is CURRENTLY a dual track system
Its actually a 3 track system, with millions getting to do without
medical services except for life threatening medical problems.
> American government medicine is lobbyist run,
Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. If it was, medicare would pay a lot better than it does.
> and American private medicine is government run.
Completely and utterly mindlessly silly.
> For example, competition between insurance companies is forbidden,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> and the plans offered by insurance companies are determined by state
> governments on the basis of which lobbyist offers the biggest contribution
> to have the services he is lobbying for made free or low cost to the end user.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> Because the price is determined by lobbyists at state capitals,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> rather than the market place, prices are inordinately high.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
>>> Unfortunately, what we are getting is a one track system
>> Another bare faced pathological lie.
>>> in which private health care is incorporated into the state.
>> Another bare faced pathological lie.
>> You are free to stick with your current health
>> care arrangements if you are happy with them.
> No you are not.
Corse you are.
> All insurance schemes shall be equally gold plated,
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> and everyone must join such a scheme.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
Those who qualify for medicare dont have to, fuckwit.
> This abolishes what little market place medicine there is
Another bare faced pathological lie.
> - it will eliminate the customer from having any influence over the provision of medicine.
Another bare faced pathological lie.
You are free to stick with your current health
Stevie Nichts
> On Nov 11, 4:35 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AZDuffman wrote:
> > >> Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
>
> > > Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
>
> > Ah, so not only do the poor deserve to die in the street, but so does the middle
> > class...
>
> I have yet to see anyone "dying in the streets."
>
> Perhaps you live in a third world country?
No, just a parallel universe which, BTW, is in black and white:
liberals good! conservatives e-e-e-vil!
Stevie Nichts
> Kill pathological liars.
Ah, there it is: you're not interested in a rational discussion
because you're just another troll. *Plonk*
Werner
>...
>
> And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They wont be stupid enough to pull the
> plug on the US because they know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
Banks lose on foreclosures, Rod. But they lose more without
foreclosures. So you see, there are better and worse ways to get
fucked. We now see a lot more foreclosures.
AZDuffman
That sure is oppisite from here. I wonder if in that universe the
Cleveland Browns win Superbowls?
Rod Speed
>>>>> This isn't ww2.
>> And they know which side their bread is buttered on too. They
>> wont be stupid enough to pull the plug on the US because they
>> know that they would be completely fucked if they were that stupid.
> Banks lose on foreclosures, Rod.
Banks arent economys.
> But they lose more without foreclosures.
That is just plain wrong. The biggest banks did much
better with bailouts than Lehmans did with foreclosure.
> So you see, there are better and worse ways to
> get fucked. We now see a lot more foreclosures.
But wont see china pull the plug on the US. They aint that stupid.
Nichts Fucker
Just another silly little child sticking its fingers in its ears, closing its eyes and chanting
'nyah, nyah, nyah, cant hear ya' when its got done like a fucking dinner, yet again.
*Anarcissie*
wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 4:35 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> AZDuffman wrote:
> >>>> Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
> >>> Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
> >> Ah, so not only do the poor deserve to die in the street, but so does the middle
> >> class...
>
> > I have yet to see anyone "dying in the streets."
>
> > Perhaps you live in a third world country?
>
> an eye out and update the group when I see the dead piling up.
>
I imagine that any dead bodies are removed by the
Department of Sanitation, at least in the better parts
of your town.
It's evident from the fact that the costs of medical care
are rising much faster than the average incomes of most
of the people, the CPI, and so forth, that the present
arrangements are unable to contain prices, although they
are somewhat restrained by the inability or refusal of
tens of millions of people to pay. The possible outcomes
of this process are obvious: either prices will rise until
only a minority of wealthy people can pay them (one
kind of rationing) or they'll be fixed and explicit rationing
will be imposed. Either of these outcomes will pose
important political problems for our great leaders, the
ruling class, etc. Jokes about bodies in the streets
won't change the prospects.
*Anarcissie*
> ...
> But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public option
> with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form a third
> party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of the citizenry
> self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to register as a reason why
> they can't get their agenda passed); and if they pass it, the GOP will
> be hypercharged and the young Obama voters disenchanted.
Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
into what's left of the Republican Party, as in upstate New
York this last election. A religious-right party is going to
have trouble collecting more than a third or so of the vote
in most areas outside the Bible Belt, especially if otherwise
conservative types run against it.
The big problem for progs, of course, is the ruling-class
requirement that all serious parties and candidates
support the settled policy of imperialism and the wars
which it occasions. The progs don't like it but the r.c.
will see to it that they don't get anywhere, inside or
outside the Democratic Party, if they don't sign on.
We're not far from Julius and Augustus, so it probably
doesn't make much difference anyway.
Rod Speed
> Poetic Justice <PoeticJustice@talk-n-dog...com> wrote
>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> Taking money and then not covering is called "theft", not "insurance".
>>>>> Then buy a higher level of insurance instead of a cheaper HMO.
>>>> Ah, so not only do the poor deserve to die in the street, but so does the middle class...
>>> I have yet to see anyone "dying in the streets."
>>> Perhaps you live in a third world country?
>> looking out my window, not even one dead body in the streets. I'll
>> keep an eye out and update the group when I see the dead piling up.
>> This government created health care crisis is all a hoax.
> I imagine that any dead bodies are removed by the Department
> of Sanitation, at least in the better parts of your town.
There are no piles of corpses in the streets that require removal by anyone.
> It's evident from the fact that the costs of medical care
> are rising much faster than the average incomes of most
> of the people, the CPI, and so forth, that the present
> arrangements are unable to contain prices,
Yes, but no 'arrangement' can do that while ever we keep being able
to do much more to stop people dying than we used to be able to do
and while so many of those new approaches are so expensive like
with heart bypasses and medication for life like with heart disease,
diabetes etc etc etc where you previously just got to die cheaply.
> although they are somewhat restrained by the inability
> or refusal of tens of millions of people to pay.
Thats mostly true of cancers but not of other stuff like diabetes and heart disease.
> The possible outcomes of this process are obvious:
We'll see...
> either prices will rise until only a minority of wealthy people can pay them
> (one kind of rationing) or they'll be fixed and explicit rationing will be imposed.
Or every country that has a viable political system will work out how to pay those
costs for HALF the percentage of GDP that the US pisses against the wall.
> Either of these outcomes will pose important political problems for our great leaders, the ruling class, etc.
There is no ruling class. Every other modern first and second world
country has a political system that is capable of dealing with the fact
that while ever we can do much more medically than we used to be
able to do, costs will often increase at a faster rate than the CPI.
> Jokes about bodies in the streets won't change the prospects.
Neither does your waffle.
Rod Speed
> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>> But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public
>> option with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form a
>> third party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of the
>> citizenry self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to register
>> as a reason why they can't get their agenda passed); and if they
>> pass it, the GOP will be hypercharged and the young Obama voters
>> disenchanted.
> Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
> into what's left of the Republican Party, as in upstate New
> York this last election. A religious-right party is going to
> have trouble collecting more than a third or so of the vote
> in most areas outside the Bible Belt, especially if otherwise
> conservative types run against it.
> The big problem for progs, of course, is the ruling-class requirement
There is no ruling class.
> that all serious parties and candidates support the settled
> policy of imperialism and the wars which it occasions.
The demoprats gave up on that quite a while ago now.
> The progs don't like it but the r.c. will see to it that they don't get
> anywhere, inside or outside the Democratic Party, if they don't sign on.
There is no ruling class and the demoprats did fine when they
gave up on imperialism and the associated wars until Slick
was actually stupid enough to have Monica suck his dick.
> We're not far from Julius and Augustus,
Hell of a long way from them in fact.
Niether of them went quietly when his two terms were up.
> so it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.
Mindlessly silly.
Stevie Nichts
I'm not sure -- but I hear that the Cubs are six-time
World Series winners...
*Anarcissie*
> Anarcissiewrote
>
> > John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public
> >> option with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form a
> >> third party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of the
> >> citizenry self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to register
> >> as a reason why they can't get their agenda passed); and if they
> >> pass it, the GOP will be hypercharged and the young Obama voters
> >> disenchanted.
> > Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
> > into what's left of the Republican Party, as in upstate New
> > York this last election. A religious-right party is going to
> > have trouble collecting more than a third or so of the vote
> > in most areas outside the Bible Belt, especially if otherwise
> > conservative types run against it.
> > The big problem for progs, of course, is the ruling-class requirement
> There is no ruling class.
Right. You and I and all just sit around discussing foreign
policy and then our opinions are faithfully implemented.
No doubt Hillary reads Usenet to find out what her next
move should be.
> > that all serious parties and candidates support the settled
> > policy of imperialism and the wars which it occasions.
>
> The demoprats gave up on that quite a while ago now.
On the contrary, they have been its most faithful servants.
The Republicans got into the business only more recently,
and with Bush 2 they sort of went over the top, with poor
results. Mr. O has gotten back on the regular track.
> > The progs don't like it but the r.c. will see to it that they don't get
> > anywhere, inside or outside the Democratic Party, if they don't sign on.
>
> There is no ruling class and the demoprats did fine when they
> gave up on imperialism and the associated wars until Slick
> was actually stupid enough to have Monica suck his dick.
>
> > We're not far from Julius and Augustus,
>
> Hell of a long way from them in fact.
>
> Niether of them went quietly when his two terms were up.
Augustus went very quietly during his first term -- it is said
that his wife poisoned him.
> > so it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.
>
> Mindlessly silly.
You will see our friends J. and A. show up when things
get sufficiently hairy, as they will. You can't run an
empire on fumes and funny money forever.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Anarcissiewrote
>>> John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public
>>>> option with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form
>>>> a third party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of
>>>> the citizenry self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to
>>>> register as a reason why they can't get their agenda passed); and
>>>> if they pass it, the GOP will be hypercharged and the young Obama
>>>> voters disenchanted.
>>> Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
>>> into what's left of the Republican Party, as in upstate New
>>> York this last election. A religious-right party is going to
>>> have trouble collecting more than a third or so of the vote
>>> in most areas outside the Bible Belt, especially if otherwise
>>> conservative types run against it.
>>> The big problem for progs, of course, is the ruling-class requirement
>> There is no ruling class.
> Right.
Fraid so.
> You and I and all just sit around discussing foreign
> policy and then our opinions are faithfully implemented.
What actually happens is that some clowns fuck up very spectacularly indeed
and completely implode the entire world financial system, AGAIN, and the
voters notice what they have done and give the clowns that did that the bums
rush at the ballot box and they wont control congress again for a very long time.
The Canadians were even more gung ho in the past. When their clowns
fucked up badly enough, the party that had once been the govt got the
bums rush at the ballot box so very comprehensively that they ended
up with quite literally just TWO elected national parliamentarians.
When the english decided that while Churchill had saved their bacon
during WW2, that they didnt like his imperial ideas either and gave
him the bums rush at the ballot box very uncermoniously indeed just
after the war had ended.
If there really was a ruling class, even someone as stupid as you
should be able to grasp that they wouldnt let that sort of thing happen.
> No doubt Hillary reads Usenet to find out what her next move should be.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
>>> that all serious parties and candidates support the settled
>>> policy of imperialism and the wars which it occasions.
>> The demoprats gave up on that quite a while ago now.
> On the contrary, they have been its most faithful servants.
Completely and utterly mindlessly silly. Slick wasnt on that.
> The Republicans got into the business only more recently,
> and with Bush 2 they sort of went over the top, with poor
> results. Mr. O has gotten back on the regular track.
Nope, he'll pull out of afghanistan, you watch.
>>> The progs don't like it but the r.c. will see to it that they don't
>>> get anywhere, inside or outside the Democratic Party, if they don't
>>> sign on.
>> There is no ruling class and the demoprats did fine when they
>> gave up on imperialism and the associated wars until Slick
>> was actually stupid enough to have Monica suck his dick.
>>> We're not far from Julius and Augustus,
>> Hell of a long way from them in fact.
>> Niether of them went quietly when his two terms were up.
> Augustus went very quietly during his first term -- it is said that his wife poisoned him.
You'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
>>> so it probably doesn't make much difference anyway.
>> Mindlessly silly.
> You will see our friends J. and A. show up
> when things get sufficiently hairy, as they will.
How odd that they didnt during the great depression or either world war.
> You can't run an empire on fumes and funny money forever.
Corse you can, thats what its been running on for more than a century now.
Les Cargill
> On Nov 12, 12:40 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> But, whatever happens, life is good. If they don't pass a public option
>> with abortion coverage, the progressives will probably form a third
>> party (for some reason, the simple fact that only 15% of the citizenry
>> self-describe as "progressives" doesn't seem to register as a reason why
>> they can't get their agenda passed); and if they pass it, the GOP will
>> be hypercharged and the young Obama voters disenchanted.
>
> Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
> into what's left of the Republican Party, as in upstate New
> York this last election. A religious-right party is going to
> have trouble collecting more than a third or so of the vote
> in most areas outside the Bible Belt, especially if otherwise
> conservative types run against it.
>
The time has come for the religious right to concede their loss.
Of course they won't. There's too much money in the amalgam
of pop psychology and multilevel marketing to do so.
So it'll founder on down the road, wallowing in its
irrelevance, drawing on those who don't know any better
or who have so little sense of identity that they have
nothing else.
People actually give money to Ted Haggard and think he's
a great man. Lots of people. Given that, how can anything
surprise anyone? Wealthy people first and foremeost.
Y'know, my favorite Vonnegut book is still probably
"Rosewater". Ted Haggard must have used that for an MBA thesis,
if MBAs do theses. Why, Mr. Vonnegut, it's not a problem,
it's a business model.
"But Mr. Roswewatee, my kiddleys hurt something awful" -
Diana Moon Glampers.
> The big problem for progs, of course, is the ruling-class
> requirement that all serious parties and candidates
> support the settled policy of imperialism and the wars
> which it occasions.
Well, it doesn't have to be. Hitchens waged rhetorical war in
favor if it for a long time. I try very hard, but I still
don't see "imperialism" in that. The US has been purely
reactive in its behavior ... that way.
The resulting interpretation seems like we have people who
have read 1984, understood it, made it part of their
psychological DNA... and still seem to desire to
implement it.
Thats just too emo an explanation to be viable. it is as if
the only goals of empire were to provide food, clean water and
basic sanitation. But somehow, that's still subjugation.
Makes my 'ead 'urt, it does. But I defend your right to cholera
unquestioned. I think.
> The progs don't like it but the r.c.
> will see to it that they don't get anywhere, inside or
> outside the Democratic Party, if they don't sign on.
>
Our system works like a bandpass filter to mercilessly
null extremism. That's why people like faux extremism.
Like Ted Haggard. Looka that yoyo. That's the way to do it.
You play the piper on the MTV... that's ain't workin...
thass the way you do it. Get your money for nothing,
and boychiks for free...
> We're not far from Julius and Augustus, so it probably
> doesn't make much difference anyway.
>
I don't know even how we can get there. And people have
tried to explain it to me. It just falls flat. This
could go on for millenia, converging on a very dull grey.
--
Les Cargill
James A. Donald
> Presumably the abortion issue would also drive a wedge
> into what's left of the Republican Party, as in
> upstate New York this last election.
Hoffman is evasive on abortion. He never mentioned
abortion during his campaign. So is Palin. Palin is
totally opposed to abortion, except to the extent of
banning it.
Q: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states
could once again prohibit abortion, in your
view, to what extent should abortion be
prohibited in Alaska?
A: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would
not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban
anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska
to discuss and decide how we would like our
society to reflect our values.
Q: Do you support or oppose the use of public
funds for abortion (e.g., paying for abortion,
promoting abortion, subsidizing organizations
that provide or refer for abortion)?
A: I oppose the use of public funds for elective
abortions.
The people you are calling "extreme right" have
positions that are focus grouped and polled on the
median voter
Sarah Palin sincerely believes in Jesus Christ and is a
genuinely born again bible believing Christian, but
before deciding which Jesus Christ to believe in she
first polled and focus grouped to determine what version
of Jesus Christ never disagrees with more than 49% of
the voters. She fully and sincerely accepts the New
Testament in its entirety, but the holy spirit moves
her to only accept as much of the Old Testament as goes
down well in focus groups.
In contrast, people like Dede Scozzafava look like
raving lunatics to mainstream voters.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.