Even More Reason to fear Hilbama
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
I can't agree more. I have no beef with the government socializing health care though. If they're going to take about 2.5 days worth of my paycheck every two weeks I'd rather be able to get something back. Right now it's not going to happen with somewhere around 30% of all our taxes used to "fight the war on global terror." Whoever is elected next needs to shift spending from fighting terrorism/fear to taking care of our own country's needs.
I think money should be shifted back where it came: to taxpayers.
Did you know that the individual income tax raises about a trillion dollars per year for the government.
Perhaps coincidentally, a trillion dollars per year is the amount government spending has increased since Bush took office. If we only got back to the spending levels in Clinton's last year, we could completely eliminate the individual income tax.
Did you know that the individual income tax raises about a trillion dollars per year for the government.
Perhaps coincidentally, a trillion dollars per year is the amount government spending has increased since Bush took office. If we only got back to the spending levels in Clinton's last year, we could completely eliminate the individual income tax.
I think this is a sentiment that too many right wing pundits seem to overlook. Americans by and large don't mind paying taxes if they think they are getting value for their money. They don't like paying taxes, but then they don't llike car payments either. Hillary's plan is to give people what they are already paying for(at least in their minds).
Compare medicare overhead to any private health insurance in the US and it becomes obvious to all but the purposely ignorant that govt health insurance is more efficient that corporate health insurance. Ideology be damned that is the fact.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!Justme said:
Do you really believe that government *anything* is more efficient that the same thing offered under the free enterprise system?
See, that is why the right wing will lose. The FACT is, within our current system, medicare is more efficient than private health insurance. People with more knowledge of economics will know that this is because private health insurance is more regulated than medicare, but that doesn't change the FACT.
In this instance people are willing to accept less regulation of the govt agency than they are private for profit corporations. That is why govt health insurance is more efficient than private health insurance, simple free market economics at work, granted more complicated than the typical election year soundbite, but there you have it, any questions?
In this instance people are willing to accept less regulation of the govt agency than they are private for profit corporations. That is why govt health insurance is more efficient than private health insurance, simple free market economics at work, granted more complicated than the typical election year soundbite, but there you have it, any questions?
Wildalaska
Moderator
One thing that the government does better than the private sector is find and punish fraud 
WildthedocsliveinfearAlaska TM
WildthedocsliveinfearAlaska TM
ForksLaPush
New member
Wow. So you don't believe in Santa Claus, but you still want to send him a letter and ask for a medical plan for Christmas?
SpectreBlofeld
New member
I am not an Obama supporter, but in his defense on this particular issue, most of the 'justification' for the use of military force - including the new-infamous 'iraqi unmanned drone photos' - was delievered to select members of Congress in a secret meeting prior to the vote. A qualifier needs to be added to his statement - "Knowing what I know now..."
Knowing what we know now, any invasion of Iraq would have done well to get 3 or 4 votes. Even Colin Powell said something to that effect.
Whatever happened to Gen Powell anyway? He sure would have been a better candidate than any of the bunch you guys have running now. Of course if he ever runs for office people will find out he's really a democrat.
Whatever happened to Gen Powell anyway? He sure would have been a better candidate than any of the bunch you guys have running now. Of course if he ever runs for office people will find out he's really a democrat.
Yeah, I got one: Suppose that people are less motivated by abstract notions of macroeconomic efficiency and instead prefer the highest quality healthcare they can get individually, no matter how inefficient the system is in the macroeconomic sense. Would that not mean that an efficient gov't health insurance system that sacrifices variances in healthcare quality in favor of uniform, maximally efficient healthcare would run into serious public resistance and could thus only be implemented by blatantly disregarding the will of the people?
I mean, yeah, reaching a macro level of efficiency is great, but that also means that breast implant docs will have to stop turning women into Barbie dolls and actually practice some real medicine.
SpectreBlofeld
New member
Most importantly: do conjoined names like 'hillbama' and 'branjelina' creep anyone out a little bit?
You're right people at the top end might lose if people are treated more equally within the healthcare system. This might be a problem if those people outnumbered those who don't have any healthcare insurance or choices. When the free market fails a large percentage of the people those people will either change the rules or start a revolution.
Since our system has screwed over the people at the bottom at a higher rate than they have benifited the people at the top, a change to an eglatarian healthcare system would benifit far more people than it harms.
One final thing, and I forget which economist put forth the idea back in the mid 1980s, but people are least willing to pay for things they think are neccessities. Things like food, water, shelter and medical care are the things people feel are so neccessary that everyone should have them whether they can afford to pay or not.
Since our system has screwed over the people at the bottom at a higher rate than they have benifited the people at the top, a change to an eglatarian healthcare system would benifit far more people than it harms.
One final thing, and I forget which economist put forth the idea back in the mid 1980s, but people are least willing to pay for things they think are neccessities. Things like food, water, shelter and medical care are the things people feel are so neccessary that everyone should have them whether they can afford to pay or not.
I'd be willing to accept some sort of health plan offered to working people so they can afford the exhorbinant prices charged by doctors and staff.
However, it should not be free. People should have to pay for some of their health care. Be it in the form of insurance premium, etc.
It should not be free for those who do not work. Doctors are somewhat a luxury item based on how much they charge. It's a shame it is so expensive, however, that's reality. Something that expensive shouldn't be free for everyone. You should have to work and pay for it.
Example, I had a colonoscopy last month. The procedure lasted 20 minutes and I was in the recovery room a total of one hour (this includes the 20 minutes prep time before the testing). All the doctor did was put a long tube up my rectum. This wasn't brain surgery.
You know how much this cost........? It cost $2,500.00!! Sorry, this is too expensive (and these exhorbinant costs exist throughout the medical industry) to just make it free for everyone. When something costs that much, people must pay for some of it. It's become a luxury item for all intents and purposes.
Well, I guess doctors have always been a "luxury" item if you think about it. Why? Because they are very expensive. You, as I said, should have to pay for some of this very expensive type of "item" IMHO.
Justme: Whoever said - "One final thing, and I forget which economist put forth the idea back in the mid 1980s, but people are least willing to pay for things they think are neccessities. Things like food, water, shelter and medical care are the things people feel are so neccessary that everyone should have them whether they can afford to pay or not." - must have been asking the most selfish, unproductive, lazy people I've ever imagined. No one I know would EVER say that. It, sadly, reeks of communism.
I mean, come on, food, water, housing and medical care should all be free. What kind of utopian gibberish is that??!! I'm totally baffled by the selfishness of ANYONE who would adhere to such a ridiculous, self aggrandizing, value system. I mean, WTF would anyone work for if all that was free!!??
Where did you read that? Was it an old survey done in Stalinist Russia?
However, it should not be free. People should have to pay for some of their health care. Be it in the form of insurance premium, etc.
It should not be free for those who do not work. Doctors are somewhat a luxury item based on how much they charge. It's a shame it is so expensive, however, that's reality. Something that expensive shouldn't be free for everyone. You should have to work and pay for it.
Example, I had a colonoscopy last month. The procedure lasted 20 minutes and I was in the recovery room a total of one hour (this includes the 20 minutes prep time before the testing). All the doctor did was put a long tube up my rectum. This wasn't brain surgery.
You know how much this cost........? It cost $2,500.00!! Sorry, this is too expensive (and these exhorbinant costs exist throughout the medical industry) to just make it free for everyone. When something costs that much, people must pay for some of it. It's become a luxury item for all intents and purposes.
Well, I guess doctors have always been a "luxury" item if you think about it. Why? Because they are very expensive. You, as I said, should have to pay for some of this very expensive type of "item" IMHO.
Justme: Whoever said - "One final thing, and I forget which economist put forth the idea back in the mid 1980s, but people are least willing to pay for things they think are neccessities. Things like food, water, shelter and medical care are the things people feel are so neccessary that everyone should have them whether they can afford to pay or not." - must have been asking the most selfish, unproductive, lazy people I've ever imagined. No one I know would EVER say that. It, sadly, reeks of communism.
I mean, come on, food, water, housing and medical care should all be free. What kind of utopian gibberish is that??!! I'm totally baffled by the selfishness of ANYONE who would adhere to such a ridiculous, self aggrandizing, value system. I mean, WTF would anyone work for if all that was free!!??
Where did you read that? Was it an old survey done in Stalinist Russia?
Last edited:
ForksLaPush
New member
Think of the most efficient government office you have ever experienced. Now imagine the same level of efficiency and competence when you go in for your colonoscopy.
Wanting the government to "solve" healthcare is no match for the reality of actually having them attempt it. Clinton is promising what only the most wishful can believe.
Wanting the government to "solve" healthcare is no match for the reality of actually having them attempt it. Clinton is promising what only the most wishful can believe.
I didn't say I agreed with the concept of people being unwilling to pay for those things they thought were neccessities, just that this is indeed how people feel. And it's not that they are unwilling to pay, just that they feel that those things should be inexpensive as regards to a percentage of income. I can't remember the guys name, but he was a fairly famous conservative economist who was famous in the 1980s for a while, I studied his theories in my MBA classes.
I don't find it hard to believe that people are of the opinion that medical care should be affordable to anyone with a job of any kind. People are basically decent and would be upset that someone who works for a low wage should just be allowed to die of a treatable condition because that is economic reality.
Human beings a socialist by nature, it is in our genes, if we weren't the tribes from which we descend would have died out before we would have been able to create civilisation. Our own pioneer ancestors would have all died out or been killed by natives if we hadn't practiced socialism. Nothing inherently wrong or unamerican about it. The problem isn't socialism it's central control, you can have that with socialism or capitalism, harping on about socialism is just a way to mask the real problems.
I don't find it hard to believe that people are of the opinion that medical care should be affordable to anyone with a job of any kind. People are basically decent and would be upset that someone who works for a low wage should just be allowed to die of a treatable condition because that is economic reality.
Human beings a socialist by nature, it is in our genes, if we weren't the tribes from which we descend would have died out before we would have been able to create civilisation. Our own pioneer ancestors would have all died out or been killed by natives if we hadn't practiced socialism. Nothing inherently wrong or unamerican about it. The problem isn't socialism it's central control, you can have that with socialism or capitalism, harping on about socialism is just a way to mask the real problems.
mountainclmbr
New member
If we get rid of all of our nukes and the axis of evil countries decide to use theirs against us, a whole lot of people won't need health care any more.
I see, well it's a utopian desire that economist was talking about IMHO.
The nuts and bolts of a national health care plan has to be provided with a comparison to the current private health care system. We need to know the actual cost estimates. From alot of sources/studies also.
Analysis of how it would effect research must be provided also.
This isn't something we should jump into just because we feel good about it. I mean, I'd love to give everyone a car for free but it's just too darn expensive. Remember my post, it cost $2,500.00 for a colonoscopy! Can you imagine what other, more complicated, treatments cost? Sad but true, the medical industry charges an exhorbinant amount for their services/treatments. Always have, that's why people have historically looked at them as sort of a "luxury".
Sorry, for me it's just too expensive to give broad health care coverage freely. You have to work for it. Low income workers need a basic plan, I will give you that, but the costs must be reviewed objectively. There's nothing wrong with me getting less coverage than someone who makes more money. I have no problem with that. I don't blame the rest of society for my failings.
Where I work, a family plan costs roughly $5,000.00 per year with the employer picking up the other 60 percent. I receive less pay because of their contribution but that is what they pay. If I want better coverage I must pay for it. I have no problem with that. It's my responsibility to work and pay for my, and loved one's, essentials. I don't expect you to pay for all of it. That wouldn't be fair to you.
IIRC, Hillary's first national health care plan proposal was so expensive that it died on the vine. Sure, the concept is nice but the reality of the costs have to be reviewed CLOSELY and with an even temperment (i.e., not with a pie in the sky, feel good temperment).
I know you weren't agreeing with giving the "essentials" for free or for a very low, government controlled cost, but for people to say those things should be inexpensive so they have more for "fun money" is very selfish IMHO.
The essentials are what we work for and that's how it should be. Reducing the costs to low, unrealistic levels produces a society that loses its drive IMHO. Look at how the Communist countries panned out. They were terribly run and didn't progress properly IMHO. They became stagnant and unproductive compared to Capitalist societies.
Too many people in this country want something for nothing based on what that economist said (and what we all have read over the years) and that is terribly wrong IMHO. That type of attitude starts the "decline" in a society IMHO.
The nuts and bolts of a national health care plan has to be provided with a comparison to the current private health care system. We need to know the actual cost estimates. From alot of sources/studies also.
Analysis of how it would effect research must be provided also.
This isn't something we should jump into just because we feel good about it. I mean, I'd love to give everyone a car for free but it's just too darn expensive. Remember my post, it cost $2,500.00 for a colonoscopy! Can you imagine what other, more complicated, treatments cost? Sad but true, the medical industry charges an exhorbinant amount for their services/treatments. Always have, that's why people have historically looked at them as sort of a "luxury".
Sorry, for me it's just too expensive to give broad health care coverage freely. You have to work for it. Low income workers need a basic plan, I will give you that, but the costs must be reviewed objectively. There's nothing wrong with me getting less coverage than someone who makes more money. I have no problem with that. I don't blame the rest of society for my failings.
Where I work, a family plan costs roughly $5,000.00 per year with the employer picking up the other 60 percent. I receive less pay because of their contribution but that is what they pay. If I want better coverage I must pay for it. I have no problem with that. It's my responsibility to work and pay for my, and loved one's, essentials. I don't expect you to pay for all of it. That wouldn't be fair to you.
IIRC, Hillary's first national health care plan proposal was so expensive that it died on the vine. Sure, the concept is nice but the reality of the costs have to be reviewed CLOSELY and with an even temperment (i.e., not with a pie in the sky, feel good temperment).
I know you weren't agreeing with giving the "essentials" for free or for a very low, government controlled cost, but for people to say those things should be inexpensive so they have more for "fun money" is very selfish IMHO.
The essentials are what we work for and that's how it should be. Reducing the costs to low, unrealistic levels produces a society that loses its drive IMHO. Look at how the Communist countries panned out. They were terribly run and didn't progress properly IMHO. They became stagnant and unproductive compared to Capitalist societies.
Too many people in this country want something for nothing based on what that economist said (and what we all have read over the years) and that is terribly wrong IMHO. That type of attitude starts the "decline" in a society IMHO.