Real Conspiracy(healthcare bill) - Page 6

On December 22 2009 11:08 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 22:01 Baal wrote:   On December 21 2009 21:19 nolan wrote: im still waiting for the canadian and UK LP'ers to tell me about how terrible their system is and that they wish they could buy private health care. im also wondering why the american posters who are so outraged at the prospect of public health care are not equally outraged at the present state of publicly funded schools, police, and fire departments. i think they would be more efficient and practical if we allowed private enterprises to fund them as well. sorta like those blackwater guys, but in our local communities. Lets not discuss the morals or the pros and cons of both systems (private and gov), lets address the important thing that ive been saying like 10 times and everybody fucking ignores it because they cant say shit about it. Nolan do you think that in the midst of the biggest crisis in 80 years where the country is drowning in debt and inflation is wise to dump another trillion dollars into a social program?, it doesnt matter if the program will be good or bad, you simply cannot afford it now and are going more into debt, a debt you cant even pay its interest anymore. baal where do you think this 1 trillion dollars will come from and where do you think it will go seriously baal you're just so fucking stubborn it's amazing just answer this questin since you know everything

increased taxation and fed loans

On December 21 2009 17:00 asdf2000 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 14:24 Sicks Macks wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person. I hope we can both agree that they only think this because they or someone they love isn't in such a position.

No, I can divorce the selfish desire for essentially all the world's resources to be spent on my family's wellbeing with the intellectual understanding that this is unworkable.

On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person, regardless of if they realize it some people do get sick, and some of those people don't have money. hell, some of those people are children. argue with that oh and also, some of the posts about the 1 am vote being "against the spirit of democracy" is ridiculous. xenocidegs explained why

99.9% of humans are horribly selfish, the people you love and care about you care about out of selfishness. if you care about children, you'lll give them freedom and stop by law making them pledge allegiance to the government in the warehouses. "liberty and justice for all", really except for if you are under the age of 21 and depending on what state you are in.
there is a better way, its called liberty. You are a british fucktard pig, you are like a baby dont know what to do making noise.
this is what needs to happen to bring free healthcare to america:
yeah free healthcare and shitload free'er and better than the public option.

1. Eliminate all licensing requirements for medical schools, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical doctors and other health care personnel. Their supply would almost instantly increase, prices would fall, and a greater variety of health care services would appear on the market.

Competing voluntary accreditation agencies would take the place of compulsory government licensing--if health care providers believe that such accreditation would enhance their own reputation, and that their consumers care about reputation, and are willing to pay for it.

Because consumers would no longer be duped into believing that there is such a thing as a "national standard" of health care, they will increase their search costs and make more discriminating health care choices.

2. Eliminate all government restrictions on the production and sale of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. This means no more Food and Drug Administration, which presently hinders innovation and increases costs.

Costs and prices would fall, and a wider variety of better products would reach the market sooner. The market would force consumers to act in accordance with their own--rather than the government's--risk assessment. And competing drug and device manufacturers and sellers, to safeguard against product liability suits as much as to attract customers, would provide increasingly better product descriptions and guarantees.

3. Deregulate the health insurance industry. Private enterprise can offer insurance against events over whose outcome the insured possesses no control. One cannot insure oneself against suicide or bankruptcy, for example, because it is in one's own hands to bring these events about.

Because a person's health, or lack of it, lies increasingly within his own control, many, if not most health risks, are actually uninsurable. "Insurance" against risks whose likelihood an individual can systematically influence falls within that person's own responsibility.

All insurance, moreover, involves the pooling of individual risks. It implies that insurers pay more to some and less to others. But no one knows in advance, and with certainty, who the "winners" and "losers" will be. "Winners" and "losers" are distributed randomly, and the resulting income redistribution is unsystematic. If "winners" or "losers" could be systematically predicted, "losers" would not want to pool their risk with "winners," but with other "losers," because this would lower their insurance costs. I would not want to pool my personal accident risks with those of professional football players, for instance, but exclusively with those of people in circumstances similar to my own, at lower costs.

Because of legal restrictions on the health insurers' right of refusal--to exclude any individual risk as uninsurable--the present health-insurance system is only partly concerned with insurance. The industry cannot discriminate freely among different groups' risks.

As a result, health insurers cover a multitude of uninnsurable risks, alongside, and pooled with, genuine insurance risks. They do not discriminate among various groups of people which pose significantly different insurance risks. The industry thus runs a system of income redistribution--benefiting irresponsible actors and high-risk groups at the expense of responsible individuals and low risk groups. Accordingly the industry's prices are high and ballooning.

To deregulate the industry means to restore it to unrestricted freedom of contract: to allow a health insurer to offer any contract whatsoever, to include or exclude any risk, and to discriminate among any groups of individuals. Uninsurable risks would lose coverage, the variety of insurance policies for the remaining coverage would increase, and price differentials would reflect genuine insurance risks. On average, prices would drastically fall. And the reform would restore individual responsibility in health care.

4. Eliminate all subsidies to the sick or unhealthy. Subsidies create more of whatever is being subsidized. Subsidies for the ill and diseased breed illness and disease, and promote carelessness, indigence, and dependency. If we eliminate them, we would strengthen the will to live healthy lives and to work for a living. In the first instance, that means abolishing Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read.

lets not go into deregulation, anarchy models or debating about morality of the issue, lets focus on the first thing that impedes this to be a viable thing to do... the economy.

So TenBagger do you now know if its going to take away most of Medicares benefits and it will costs less money in the end or its still just an speculation.

Judging from that list posted, (which really doesn't have much value) it says that they wont revoke medicare benefits and as a i said, that would imply that im right and this cannot be.

On December 22 2009 17:21 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2009 16:57 k2o4 wrote: More about what the bill will actually do:   But let's talk about what's really at stake for America. The Senate health reform bill will: -- Extend coverage to 31 million Americans, the largest expansion of coverage since the creation of Medicare. -- Ensure that you can choose your own doctor. -- Finally stop insurance companies from denying coverage due to a pre-existing condition. -- Make sure you will never be charged exorbitant premiums on the basis of your age, health, or gender. -- Guarantee you will never lose your coverage just because you get sick or injured. -- Protect you from outrageous out-of-pocket expenditures by establishing lifetime and annual limits. -- Allow young people to stay on their parents' coverage until they're 26 years old. -- Create health insurance exchanges, or "one-stop shops" for individuals purchasing insurance, where insurance companies are forced to compete for new customers. -- Lower premiums for families, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office -- especially for struggling folks who will receive subsidies. -- Help small businesses provide health care coverage to their employees with tax credits and by allowing them to purchase coverage through the exchanges. -- Improve and strengthen Medicare by eliminating waste and fraud (without cutting basic benefits), beginning to close the Medicare Part D donut hole, and extending the life of the Medicare trust fund. -- Create jobs by reining in costs -- fostering competition, reducing waste and inefficiency, and starting to reward doctors and hospitals for quality, not quantity, of care. -- Cut the deficit by over $130 billion in the next 10 years. It's a long list. But that's only because this bill represents the most significant health reform our nation has seen since the creation of Medicare. If those points were true, then it would mean american bankruptcy as it states they dont plan to cut heavily in medicare, as Tenbagger said, without that its GG economy. Anyway nobody should take those points seriously they are obvious bullshit propaganda

It says right there in the list cuts to medicare. Just not cutting the benefits. It's not GG economy.

It's not propaganda. Saying it is doesn't make it so.

On December 22 2009 17:06 curtinsea wrote: and surely you realize these numbers are skewed for the purpose of scoring . . . that the taxes start immediately and the payouts don't start for three years . . . and that the projections are only for the first decade, hiding the increasing costs beyond the ten year period

After the first decade the savings increase.

On December 22 2009 19:43 TenBagger wrote: I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read.

Agreed. I'm assuming that Michele Bachman gives him a big boner. And on the topic of Bachman, despite her constant anti-government BS she's a total hypocrite who's been raking in big bucks from government handouts (welfare-esque farm subsidies).

They will not revoke Medicare benefits. The key point is making the entire system more efficient. The federal government basically pays for the health care of everyone over 65 and that demographic is set to explode and nearly double over the next twenty years. If an overhaul of the entire health care system can lead to a small percentage in cost savings in Medicare, the savings will be so huge that it should be able to cover the costs of extending coverage to uninsured Americans. We can debate on and on about whether or not this will actually happen, only time will tell. What is certain is that if we make no changes and continue our current path, America will likely go bankrupt. The math just doesn't work if the federal government continues to spend over $5000 per person on Medicare and the number of people on Medicare doubles from 40 million to 80 million like it is projected to over the next twenty years. The status quo is an unacceptable situation and we need to do something right now to give ourselves a chance at solving this problem.

We can have a theoretical discussion about the morality of Medicare, etc. but it is pointless because the reality is that it is politically impossible to make any significant reductions in Medicare coverage. Any talk about getting rid of Medicare might as well be talk about the Tooth Fairy because no one will see either of those happen in real life. The arguments brought up by Toteheastside and woodbrave about abolishing all licensing of doctors and hospitals and getting rid of the Medicare altogether is reflective of the type of discourse that is going on all across America and shifting the focus away from real problem solving to pure rhetoric. While it is merely my opinion that those arguments are ridiculous, it is undeniable fact that those arguments will never happen. The focus of the country should be on practical and real solutions to reducing the cost of health care and improving the efficiency of the American health care system so that we no longer spend twice as much as what other industrialized nations spend.

It is true that they will never happen but i am all for functional anarchy but its pointless to discuss it in this thread.

You are just saying that they will use this as an overhaul of medicare, to make it more efficient but well why is it terribly inefficient in the first place?, who started Medicare, the tooth fairy?, in the end you are only adding more people into a broken system.

Also the united states isnt decreasing in population so you speak as if old people were exploding in numbers while that is not true, there are more young people every day unlike countries like Germany or Spain, and that fact makes this even less reasonable.


Basically what you are saying is lets pray that they make an efficient overhaul of the system, despise the fact that they failed awfully the first time with Medicare because our politicians will put down always their popularity before the common good, which would be cutting down Medicare. How are you satisfied with that?

You are trusting a horrible government to just start doing things right, despise they are acting awfully in every other aspect and you are betting the whole US economy on it, that is so ridiculous its even anti-founding fathers, doubt the government, mistrust it and judge it constantly, the kind of concessions you are giving them is the reason the economy is fucked in the first place

On December 22 2009 17:23 Sicks Macks wrote: Show nested quote + On December 21 2009 17:00 asdf2000 wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:24 Sicks Macks wrote:   On December 21 2009 14:13 asdf2000 wrote: anyone who is against public health care is basically a horribly selfish person Or they believe that the efficiency/incentive gains from a private health care system trump the importance of covering every single person. I hope we can both agree that they only think this because they or someone they love isn't in such a position. No, I can divorce the selfish desire for essentially all the world's resources to be spent on my family's wellbeing with the intellectual understanding that this is unworkable.

So if you get laid off and lose your job, are unable to find a new one after 12 months, and can no longer afford to pay your own insurance, and then get hit by a drunk driver who flee's the scene, and are admitted to the hospital, you will be comfortable sacrificing yourself for the greater good after the hospital escorts you from the premises 5 days later regardless of your extenuating conditions?

if you want public healthcare option, how about instead of nationalizing it, you allow the states have their different systems.
and so your state has public healthcare option and my state has freedom. and then youll see how superior freedom is to your slavery system and you'll switch your system.

On December 22 2009 20:03 k2o4 wrote: Show nested quote + On December 22 2009 19:43 TenBagger wrote: I'm sorry woodbrave but that is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I've ever read. Agreed. I'm assuming that Michele Bachman gives him a big boner. And on the topic of Bachman, despite her constant anti-government BS she's a total hypocrite who's been raking in big bucks from government handouts (welfare-esque farm subsidies).

you purposely trying to needle me? needledick

Baal, you are totally misunderstanding some important points here. Let me explain

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote: You are just saying that they will use this as an overhaul of medicare

I did not say that. I said that this legislation is the first step towards an overhaul of the entire health care system. Medicare is just a program that pays for the health care of people over 65. It doesn't matter if the patient is 65 and is covered through a government program or if the patient is 25 and is covered through a private insurance company. For both cases, the US health care system spends too much money and this is the root of the problem, not the fact that the government insures old people.

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote: lets pray that they make an efficient overhaul of the system, despise the fact that they failed awfully the first time with Medicare

They did not fail with Medicare the first time. Medicare has been a successful program for the vast majority of its existence. Do not confuse Medicare with the overall health care system, they are not the same. The problem is not with the government covering the cost of care for the elderly. Countries such as Canada and UK cover not only the elderly but the entire population for less than half the cost per capita. The problem is that after a period of relatively stable growth in the 1990s, health care spending has exploded in the past decade.

On December 22 2009 20:51 Baal wrote:Also the united states isnt decreasing in population so you speak as if old people were exploding in numbers while that is not true, there are more young people every day unlike countries like Germany or Spain, and that fact makes this even less reasonable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-World_War_II_baby_boom

In the next twenty years, the US population projects to grow by 10-15%, primarily through immigration and the offspring of immigrants. However, the number of people 65+ will nearly double during that time. The proportion of the overall population that are 65+ and therefore qualify for Medicare will explode and this is an undisputed fact.

Here is an excellent resource that provides an overview of the system:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/med...uthier_transform_US_hlt_sys%20pdf.pdf

For everyone that wants to have an intelligent conversation regarding this issue, I urge you to read the entire report, especially Part 3 - Need for Greater Efficiency. I understand people will have different opinions on issues but there needs to be a foundation of basic understanding regarding the facts.

I love Tenbagger's patience. I wish I could be more like him, but I fail at it. I don't think it's worth trying to argue with baal or woodbrave or any of the others who are totally freaking out about this bill, because they're too far gone. They either are incapable of listening and have made up their minds, or they're just coming from such a far right and/or, conservative, anarchist, free market will fix everything, Obama is hitler mindset that there's no way to ever have a real conversation with them.

The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want the lurkers to read and only see posts from the wacko's and think that everyone is against healthcare or that what these guys are saying is fact. The majority of American's are IN SUPPORT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM and understand how important this bill is, and that it has many great things in it. I know conservatives like to throw around polls saying that american's are against it but they're just twisting and manipulating. Those polls are lumping in people who think Obama's bill does not go far enough in the category of "people against the bill". The article I linked above explains it.

So often the teabaggers and right wingers scream so loud and viciously that they scare the rest of us away from sharing our opinions. They try to scare the uninformed people, the ones who don't understand what's going on but maybe open a thread like this to try and formulate an opinion. The majority of the country is not right wing, not conservative, and does not think ill about this health care bill (I rhymed!)... that's why Obama got elected in the first place!

This bill is a good thing and while it definitely doesn't do enough, namely setting up true single payer universal health care, it is a great and important start. I don't think people realize how hard it is to get anything done in washington and how huge of an achievement it is for Obama to have gotten us this bill. Several other presidents have tried and failed, and Obama is getting it done before his first year is up. I didn't expect it to be done till the end of his first term at the earliest.

I'm very happy about this bill and can't wait till the votes are over. If it goes as planned and they do the final vote on Xmas eve day then I will be celebrating like crazy. It's the best Xmas gift I could hope to receive.

they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then?

I didnt get it wrong, i meant overhaul medicare, because if medicare is not fixed it cannot be sustained, yet politicians are too afraid of popularity that they wont adress the real problem that is cutting back medicare.

You are not showing what cuts in medicare that will make it efficient enough to even absorb the costs of insuring everybody under 65 and still be way better than before.

Also why do you bring canada or UK up, i already said that i believe free healthcare can work, but this is not the right time to insure just even more people only because they dont have the balls to cut down medicare, and that is assuming they will indeed change medicare that drastically and this being a smoke curtain.

On December 22 2009 23:12 k2o4 wrote: I love Tenbagger's patience. I wish I could be more like him, but I fail at it. I don't think it's worth trying to argue with baal or woodbrave or any of the others who are totally freaking out about this bill, because they're too far gone. They either are incapable of listening and have made up their minds, or they're just coming from such a far right and/or, conservative, free market will fix everything, Obama is hitler mindset that there's no way to ever have a real conversation with them. The reason I'm posting in this thread is because I don't want the lurkers to read and only see posts from the wacko's and think that everyone is against healthcare or that what these guys are saying is fact. The majority of American's are IN SUPPORT OF HEALTH CARE REFORM and understand how important this bill is, and that it has many great things in it. I know conservatives like to throw around polls saying that american's are against it but they're just twisting and manipulating. Those polls are lumping in people who think Obama's bill does not go far enough in the category of "people against the bill". The article I linked above explains it. So often the teabaggers and right wingers scream so loud and viciously that they scare the rest of us away from sharing our opinions. They try to scare the uninformed people, the ones who don't understand what's going on but maybe open a thread like this to try and formulate an opinion. The majority of the country is not right wing, not conservative, and does not think ill about this health care bill (I rhymed!)... that's why Obama got elected in the first place! This bill is a good thing and while it definitely doesn't do enough, namely setting up true single payer universal health care, it is a great and important start. I don't think people realize how hard it is to get anything done in washington and how huge of an achievement it is for Obama to have gotten us this bill. Several other presidents have tried and failed, and Obama is getting it done before his first year is up. I didn't expect it to be done till the end of his first term at the earliest. I'm very happy about this bill and can't wait till the votes are over. If it goes as planned and they do the final vote on Xmas eve day then I will be celebrating like crazy. It's the best Xmas gift I could hope to receive.

Atleast have the fucking decency to read my posts before lumping me in with them ok? i am too far right or free market? you imbecile im an Anarchist, i way farther than the right than you, tenbagger or anybody in this thread -_-

Ive said it like 10 times now in this god damn thread, im not against it as a system, im against it because i think that the worst crisis in 80 years is not a good time to do this, it is time to cut back medicare and other social benefits instead of squeezing an already suffocating economy only because they dont have the balls to loose some popularity to do what is best for the people.

And also who gives a shit about what the majority of america wants, how does that makes it a good thing, the majority of america were in favour with the war in Aghanistan and Iraq at one point ding!.

On December 22 2009 23:25 Baal wrote: Atleast have the fucking decency to read my posts before lumping me in with them ok? i am too far right or free market? you imbecile im an Anarchist, i way farther than the right than you, tenbagger or anybody in this thread -_- Ive said it like 10 times now in this god damn thread, im not against it as a system, im against it because i think that the worst crisis in 80 years is not a good time to do this, it is time to cut back medicare and other social benefits instead of squeezing an already suffocating economy only because they dont have the balls to loose some popularity to do what is best for the people. And also who gives a shit about what the majority of america wants, how does that makes it a good thing, the majority of america were in favour with the war in Aghanistan and Iraq at one point ding!.

Blah Blah Blah...

Sorry baal, I didn't think to add anarchist in the list =) I'll go edit the post and add it to make sure I'm fair in my hating.

It's funny cause when I disagree with you, you drive me crazy. When I agree with you, I think you're awesome. This is one of those times where I disagree with you and I know when that happens there's no talking you into agreeing with me, so I'm not gonna make a big effort to do so. I'd rather just go "that's baal and he has those ideas which are crazy to me, but that's just how he is".

You think it's a bad time, I think it's the perfect time. You think it will bankrupt America, I think it's essential to making sure America doesn't go bankrupt. Tenbagger has laid out the reasons for thinking that better than I could and you still don't agree, so no reason for me to try. I saw a MLK quote today at the Madame Tussadors wax museum in DC that said "The time is always right to do what is right". I think that morally this is the right thing to do, and for the future of the country it is the right thing to do, and now is the time to do it.

And you're right, just cause the majority wants it does not make it the right thing to do. I was just pre-empting any "the polls say american's hate this bill" comments cause I was watching CSPAN earlier tonight and I swear that's what every republican senator was preaching and it was very tilting.

On December 22 2009 23:13 Baal wrote: they did fail with medicare since the costs of it is unsustainable, what is a fail to you then?

They didn't fail at creating it, they failed to adjust to the games as they became more aggressive. They're still set mining and cbetting and assuming that's all you need to do to win. Now people are 3betting light and instead of adjusting they kept doing the same strategy.

What I'm trying to say is it started off fantastic and the overall idea is solid, but adjustments need to be made. Bush ignored the problem and kept making the same plays. Obama sees the problem and is adjusting the strategy for the new game.