Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

health care scam gang raping us

banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 8:52:00 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This health care bill is designed to rob the nation at gun point..! No defence will be left to the americans. A beurocratic non elected bOard will control it and no one will be able to save us from them..!
Nothing in it is for the people..! Trial lawyers got a promise to protect their interest..!!
Pharmacutical companies got easier terms to push less secured drugs...!
And insurance companies got a ok to increase old peoples premiums..!!!
The people lost everything and no one not even the republicans rty to save. Us..!!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 9:12:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 8:52:00 AM, banker wrote:
This health care bill is designed to rob the nation at gun point..! No defence will be left to the americans. A beurocratic non elected bOard will control it and no one will be able to save us from them..!

Death panels will not exist. *sigh*

Nothing in it is for the people..! Trial lawyers got a promise to protect their interest..!!
Pharmacutical companies got easier terms to push less secured drugs...!
And insurance companies got a ok to increase old peoples premiums..!!!
The people lost everything and no one not even the republicans rty to save. Us..!!

ys banker u r rite u dnt ned o ciet nyting!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 9:42:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the current healthcare bill.

Before I engage, I have a few clarifications:
1) Is there single-payer?
2) What does it do to medicare?
3) Do people that opt out get a tax credit equivalent to the amount of tax payer dollars they paid into it?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 10:26:16 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Not only are you not geting any credits,your geting jail time if you opt out..!
Madicare premiums are up..!
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 10:30:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 10:26:16 AM, banker wrote:
Not only are you not geting any credits,your geting jail time if you opt out..!
Madicare premiums are up..!

Source?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 10:45:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Listened at the conf no one ever denied that its not even a debate every one is aware of increasing primiums..! Up to 13 percent
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
banker
Posts: 1,370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 10:51:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Volkov sorry if you have any truble it apears you have a misunderstanding sorry
the most important source for muslim Arabs:

"And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: 'Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd'.".

- Qur'an 17:104 -

Any sincere muslim must recognize the Land they call "Palestine" as the Jewish Homeland, according to the book considered by muslims to be the most sacred word and Allah's ultimate revelation.

Ibn Khaldun, one of the most creditable
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 11:06:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 10:46:16 AM, Volkov wrote:
Banker, please shut up and go away. You're a blight on this website.

1) You can be banned for something like that. The TOS is tyrannical.
2) You're killing this thread yourself. It is perfectly capable into turning into a discussion of the current healthcare proposal.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 11:08:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 10:26:16 AM, banker wrote:
Not only are you not geting any credits,your geting jail time if you opt out..!

Source?

http://blogs.abcnews.com...
A penalty for not buying insurance, but not jailtime. I watched C-SPAN durng the debate a few months ago, and someone said the penalty was a quarter million dollars.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 11:44:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 9:42:57 AM, wjmelements wrote:
I have absolutely no idea what's going on with the current healthcare bill.

Before I engage, I have a few clarifications:
1) Is there single-payer?

No. Obama is against it, even Hillary Clinton was against it. I believe Nancy Pelosi wants it, but it's not going to happen. As the bill is structured now, there is no single-payer.

2) What does it do to medicare?

The Democrats supposedly want to cut about $500 billion in Medicare over the next decade. The Republicans are refusing. As the bill is structured now, there is $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade. I won't hold my breath.

3) Do people that opt out get a tax credit equivalent to the amount of tax payer dollars they paid into it?

No, you don't get a tax credit for opting out. As a matter of fact, you can't opt out because there is an individual health care mandate where everyone must buy insurance of some sort, or face a fine or even jail.

This is supposedly going to be funded by the Medicare cuts, tax on cadillac plans (expensive, elaborate coverage), and taxes on the rich and corporations. Old people don't like the Medicare cuts. Unions don't like the tax on cadillac plans. The rich and corporations don't like the taxes on themselves. The bill costs about $2.3 trillion over the next two years, but I won't be shocked if the cost triples or quadruples.

What I just said is about the health care bill already passed by the House and currently in the Senate. The Democrats can't pass the bill normally, because the bill would be filibustered. They could try reconciliation, which just requires a simple majority. There might not be enough votes for that, and the bill would be pretty much destroyed because reconciliation has very strict requirements for what can and can not pass.

Obama and the White House released a new bill a few days ago and they want a vote on that soon. I don't have much knowledge of that bill. I doubt it'll fare any better in passing than the current bill.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:08:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 11:44:50 AM, Nags wrote:

Old people don't like the Medicare cuts.

I don't get this. Right now they're getting care for free through Medicare but they don't want to get care for free from this plan? Lol are they aware that it's the same government that pays for both?

Unions don't like the tax on cadillac plans.

Today doctors have an incentive to over-treat patients because of the fee-for-service system. Doctors over-charge and get away with it because most Americans have insurance which pays for the costs. This is why Americans don't care that they're being over-treated and sometimes welcome it or welcome any expensive procedure that they don't have to pay for, obviously. If I understand Obama's proposal correctly and what this would mean for union workers, it would require them to pay more out-of-pocket costs... which in turn would hold doctors more accountable and make the patients aware of what's being done and what the costs are. The New York Times said, "Because the excise tax would be imposed on insurance companies within the health care system, the revenues it generates would grow at the rate of medical inflation; revenues from an income tax on the wealthy would probably grow more slowly."

The rich and corporations don't like the taxes on themselves.

Well, that's no surprise and if your reason for being against this plan are philosophical values cohesive to objectivism than I totally understand. But the idea that taxing the rich is dangerous because they "create jobs" is just LOL! They don't create jobs lol they CUT jobs. Let's just get real and say that the rich don't want to pay high taxes because they're greedy (hey - we all are) and not because they think taxing the rich more is worse than taxing everyone else because they "create jobs" haha.
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:10:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 11:06:15 AM, wjmelements wrote:
1) You can be banned for something like that. The TOS is tyrannical.

Don't care.

2) You're killing this thread yourself. It is perfectly capable into turning into a discussion of the current healthcare proposal.

Sue me.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:14:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:08:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't get this. Right now they're getting care for free through Medicare but they don't want to get care for free from this plan? Lol are they aware that it's the same government that pays for both?

They'll get less care because there is going to be $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Today doctors have an incentive to over-treat patients because of the fee-for-service system. Doctors over-charge and get away with it because most Americans have insurance which pays for the costs. This is why Americans don't care that they're being over-treated and sometimes welcome it or welcome any expensive procedure that they don't have to pay for, obviously. If I understand Obama's proposal correctly and what this would mean for union workers, it would require them to pay more out-of-pocket costs... which in turn would hold doctors more accountable and make the patients aware of what's being done and what the costs are. The New York Times said, "Because the excise tax would be imposed on insurance companies within the health care system, the revenues it generates would grow at the rate of medical inflation; revenues from an income tax on the wealthy would probably grow more slowly."

Yup.

Well, that's no surprise and if your reason for being against this plan are philosophical values cohesive to objectivism than I totally understand. But the idea that taxing the rich is dangerous because they "create jobs" is just LOL! They don't create jobs lol they CUT jobs. Let's just get real and say that the rich don't want to pay high taxes because they're greedy (hey - we all are) and not because they think taxing the rich more is worse than taxing everyone else because they "create jobs" haha.

Rich do create jobs though. They are the small business owners and the corporation owners. Most rich employ other people, they aren't self-employed. If you tax the rich more, they will have less incentive to hire more and more incentive to cut jobs, because they get less money either way. Indeed, everyone is greedy, but I hate it when people say the rich are greedy, like they're some kind of criminals. The Top 10% already pay over 70% of income taxes, it's not doing much by taxing them more.

I was just explaining to wjm the basics above, I wasn't giving my opinion on the bill.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:17:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 11:44:50 AM, Nags wrote:

What I just said is about the health care bill already passed by the House and currently in the Senate. The Democrats can't pass the bill normally, because the bill would be filibustered. They could try reconciliation, which just requires a simple majority. There might not be enough votes for that, and the bill would be pretty much destroyed because reconciliation has very strict requirements for what can and can not pass.

Yep. The only 'benefit' for Dems to filibustering is that it would be harder to un-do anything that gets voted in as opposed to the Republicans repealing everything Obama passes. It must be frustrating for Obama though who can't pass this thing through with a majority, especially because Cheney himself broke a 50/50 tie in the Senate 8 times when he was in office. Obama tried the bipartisan thing but it's not working. The ideology or just fundamental differences between the left and the right are growing which is why filibustering is becoming more and more popular.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:18:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:08:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Doctors over-charge and get away with it because most Americans have insurance which pays for the costs. This is why Americans don't care that they're being over-treated and sometimes welcome it or welcome any expensive procedure that they don't have to pay for, obviously.

I wonder why "insurance" companies don't try and do something to prevent doctors from "over-charging". It would seem to be in their best interest.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:24:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:14:28 PM, Nags wrote:


They'll get less care because there is going to be $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.

Yeah but even if the costs to Medicare are cut, won't they still be covered? I might be missing something but it just seems to me that they're going to get care either way regardless of what faction of the government pays for it.

Also - Don't you think it's good that doctors won't be able to over-treat because of the financial incentives? Ideologically I am opposed to national health care in principle; however, the costs are so astronomical that I understand why it's important and why the government wants to get involved. If the government took action against pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies and could somehow ensure that medical procedures and treatment would be cheaper, I'd be against it. Now I'm just 'undecided' because I can't deny the first-hand reality that such a policy would benefit someone like me who would pay minimal taxes into this thing and yet receive health care which I don't currently have.

Rich do create jobs though. They are the small business owners and the corporation owners. Most rich employ other people, they aren't self-employed. If you tax the rich more, they will have less incentive to hire more and more incentive to cut jobs, because they get less money either way. Indeed, everyone is greedy, but I hate it when people say the rich are greedy, like they're some kind of criminals.

I agree that it's dumb to act as if their greed is any worse than the greed we all have. But it's not better. The top may pay for a majority of the income taxes but that's because the income gap between the rich and the poor is so great! It's not OH POOR LITTLE RICH MAN PAYING ALL OUR TAXES because at the end of the day the disparity of wealth and lifestyles is still so great that it's hard to shed a tear for them. That said, they DO create jobs but in the end their goal isn't to employ people and make sure that everyone can work; it's to make the decision that assures them the most wealth. And many times "creating jobs" is not the way to go. There's billions chillin' in Swiss bank accounts that the American economy could use.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:25:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:18:00 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2010 12:08:23 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Doctors over-charge and get away with it because most Americans have insurance which pays for the costs. This is why Americans don't care that they're being over-treated and sometimes welcome it or welcome any expensive procedure that they don't have to pay for, obviously.

I wonder why "insurance" companies don't try and do something to prevent doctors from "over-charging". It would seem to be in their best interest.

They do. They limit their coverage which hurts the PEOPLE who pay into it and yet don't get the care they need when they try to cash in.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:27:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:24:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Ideologically I am opposed to national health care in principle; however, the costs are so astronomical that I understand why it's important and why the government wants to get involved.

What is worrisome is that you do not think that the government is involved now. On the contrary, the government created the problem in the first place.

Why do you think health care is a market failure? Why is health care so expensive but food is relatively cheap?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:28:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:17:15 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Yep. The only 'benefit' for Dems to filibustering is that it would be harder to un-do anything that gets voted in as opposed to the Republicans repealing everything Obama passes. It must be frustrating for Obama though who can't pass this thing through with a majority, especially because Cheney himself broke a 50/50 tie in the Senate 8 times when he was in office. Obama tried the bipartisan thing but it's not working. The ideology or just fundamental differences between the left and the right are growing which is why filibustering is becoming more and more popular.

I assume you mean reconciliation and not filibuster? I'd recommend the Dems use reconciliation. After they get the parts of the bill passed using reconciliation, they can go back to the drawing board and write a new bill with everything that reconciliation didn't pass. I, of course, am opposed to the bill. But politically, I think it would be smart. They have to pass at least something if they want any chance of not getting absolutely destroyed in the 2010 elections.

I forgot who it was, I think George Will form the Washington Post, but he said there's nothing wrong with being the Party of No. He said that Abraham Lincoln said No to popular sovereignty, slavery, and compromise. I think Lincoln was a terrible President, but that's beside the point. The vast majority of Americans love him, so the analogy works. The Republicans must be opposed to this bill no matter what, it just doesn't fit in with their ideology. Obama, however, did promise to reform Congress, and now it's the most polarized in history.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:30:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:27:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2010 12:24:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Ideologically I am opposed to national health care in principle; however, the costs are so astronomical that I understand why it's important and why the government wants to get involved.

What is worrisome is that you do not think that the government is involved now. On the contrary, the government created the problem in the first place.

Why do you think health care is a market failure? Why is health care so expensive but food is relatively cheap?

What are you talking about? I never said the government wasn't involved or implied that the government could solve the problem through health care. Regarding health care vs. food, I don't think that's a great analogy. I can grow a few vegetable plants in my backyard but I can't give myself an operation.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:31:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:25:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
They limit their coverage which hurts the PEOPLE who pay into it and yet don't get the care they need when they try to cash in.

When I buy bread I generally do not buy bread that contains sawdust. This is because if it was known that a certain baker used sawdust in his bread he would lose customers as they would purchase their bread from a different baker.

Why is "insurance" for health care any different?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:33:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:30:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Regarding health care vs. food, I don't think that's a great analogy. I can grow a few vegetable plants in my backyard but I can't give myself an operation.

I don't see the relevancy of the difference. If you like, you could replace food with virtually any other good or service. Cars, chairs, hats, etc.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:35:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:28:23 PM, Nags wrote:
At 2/28/2010 12:17:15 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Yep. The only 'benefit' for Dems to filibustering is that it would be harder to un-do anything that gets voted in as opposed to the Republicans repealing everything Obama passes. It must be frustrating for Obama though who can't pass this thing through with a majority, especially because Cheney himself broke a 50/50 tie in the Senate 8 times when he was in office. Obama tried the bipartisan thing but it's not working. The ideology or just fundamental differences between the left and the right are growing which is why filibustering is becoming more and more popular.

I assume you mean reconciliation and not filibuster? I'd recommend the Dems use reconciliation. After they get the parts of the bill passed using reconciliation, they can go back to the drawing board and write a new bill with everything that reconciliation didn't pass. I, of course, am opposed to the bill. But politically, I think it would be smart. They have to pass at least something if they want any chance of not getting absolutely destroyed in the 2010 elections.

Hmm yeah I might be getting the terminology confused. I thought that with reconciliation 51 votes were needed but with a filibuster you'd need 60. That makes filibustering a bill harder to pass it, but it also makes it much harder to repeal. Also, I think the mentality of the people is what's going to determine the elections. If Dems can't pass the bill but Americans still want care, they're not going to vote in Republicans who definitely won't pass it. They'll probably try again.

I forgot who it was, I think George Will form the Washington Post, but he said there's nothing wrong with being the Party of No. He said that Abraham Lincoln said No to popular sovereignty, slavery, and compromise. I think Lincoln was a terrible President, but that's beside the point. The vast majority of Americans love him, so the analogy works. The Republicans must be opposed to this bill no matter what, it just doesn't fit in with their ideology. Obama, however, did promise to reform Congress, and now it's the most polarized in history.

Lol I think Mitt Romney said that actually. I agree that there's nothing wrong with being the party of "No." But at least be consistent and say no to things like ridiculous military spending. I friggin CAN'T STAND Republicans. I understand Libertarians but Republicans make me nauseous.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:40:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:31:39 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2010 12:25:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
They limit their coverage which hurts the PEOPLE who pay into it and yet don't get the care they need when they try to cash in.

When I buy bread I generally do not buy bread that contains sawdust. This is because if it was known that a certain baker used sawdust in his bread he would lose customers as they would purchase their bread from a different baker.

Why is "insurance" for health care any different?

Oh god. Not THIS again. I'm really sick of the same DDO conversations being had over and over and over and over. I disagree with your entire ideology on this issue and that's that. We know that places like The Gap and Nike have sweatshops overseas -- Do we stop buying their clothes? No. Let's not turn this into a general market discussion. We're talking about health care.
President of DDO
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:41:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:24:51 PM, theLwerd wrote:

Also - Don't you think it's good that doctors won't be able to over-treat because of the financial incentives? Ideologically I am opposed to national health care in principle; however, the costs are so astronomical that I understand why it's important and why the government wants to get involved. If the government took action against pharmaceutical companies or insurance companies and could somehow ensure that medical procedures and treatment would be cheaper, I'd be against it. Now I'm just 'undecided' because I can't deny the first-hand reality that such a policy would benefit someone like me who would pay minimal taxes into this thing and yet receive health care which I don't currently have.

i think it would be more effective to restructure the payout system- rather than insurance companies having to pay a % of hospital operating costs, they can pay a % of procedures done on patients covered by them- procedures could be rated according to some expense/effectiveness ratio and those with a higher ratio within different brackets of treatment types would cost more to the individuals through higher premiums or out of pocket costs, or both. the current reimbursement scheme is a mess; theres no incentives for anyone to cut costs and its only going to get worse if everything is guaranteed to be paid for... somehow...

there has to be a better way to motivate people to have reasonable attitudes about healthcare. as it stands, people lose their heads and ask their doctor to do anything as long as it has some minute chance of working. set it up so that you end up paying more out of pocket for those kinds of desperation treatments and people will be more likely to avoid them.

small example, but my coworker had a cold last month and she was raging because her doctor wouldn't prescribe antibiotics. iow: doc wouldn't give her something useless. lol. people seem to think that if a doc isn't doing anything they are failing... even if the treatment they want doesn't have a reasonable chance of working, even if its ridiciulously expensive. thats gotta change, and obama's plan seems to do nothing to that end.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:44:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:40:14 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Why is "insurance" for health care any different?

Let's not turn this into a general market discussion. We're talking about health care.

Why do you think there is anything special about health care that requires special government intervention? I am interested in your theory.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:47:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well here's the thing. We currently have a pay-per-service system and it sucks. Our health care is ranked #37 in the world and compared to other industrialized we SUCK. That's why it's LOLOLOLOLOL at people like Glenn Beck who literally scream at people why America's health care is "the best in the world." It's just not true. So what have the Republicans been proposing to IMPROVE our failing health care system? Bill Maher had it right: The only thing I've heard from them is that they want to make it so you can't sue doctors. But what else have they been proposing? How can the Right make this problem better? Clearly what we have now and what they're advocating for is really sh-tty.
President of DDO
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2010 12:53:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/28/2010 12:47:25 PM, theLwerd wrote:
How can the Right make this problem better? Clearly what we have now and what they're advocating for is really sh-tty.

You are correct that the current "health care system" in the United States is "really sh-tty". But you have fallen into an old trap that goes as follows:

Something must be done.
This is something.
Therefore it must be done.

And so I pose the question to you again. Why is it that the "health care system" in these United States gets more and more expensive but yet most other commodities and services continue to get cheaper? What is it in theory that makes health care a market failure?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran