Can Any Rightwinger Give Me A Solid Argument Why Private Industry Instead Of Government Should Run..

[Mathbud1]

Did you review the data of that poll? Are you aware that the poll actually has positive data that drags the US down?
For example...."financial distribution"....a factor that talks about how much MORE the rich pay into the healthcare system over the poor......we were ranked very HIGH as expected.....in other words, we have a very large amount of people that get healthcare but dont pay for it.......and that is deemed as a "bad thing" in the poll and it drags us down....whereas "responsiveness" (one of the most important things), we are number 1.

Learn to not just look at poll numbers. Understand the criteria used for those numbers.

Otherwise, you will look like a dumbass when you post it.

You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?

The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.

And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.

Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

 

[Mathbud1]

Okay we're done. Good. Socialized medicine is the answer.

In LaLa land maybe. Having fun there?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

 

[dblack]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

Yet so many on the far right feel anything short of a privatize health care system is "Socialism". How do we fix stupidity?

 

[Listening]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

F

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

Yet so many on the far right feel anything short of a privatize health care system is "Socialism". How do we fix stupidity?

Uh...you could go jump off a high cliff.

 

[Listening]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

How foolish.

Enron was subjected to an "audit" process which they managed to corrupt.

Proof there are no safeguards against fraud and corruption. And if there was ever a "sucker" for fraud and corruption, it is the federal government.

 

[dblack]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

Yet so many on the far right feel anything short of a privatize health care system is "Socialism". How do we fix stupidity?

It takes time.

You seem to be assuming the 'privatized' health care is synonymous with giving someone control, and that's where you're making an unfounded leap. Unless we give them control (via ill-considered regulation like ACA), businesses don't control our health care system. Real privatization means deregulation. It means no one is in control. It means we are free to deal with health care the way we deal with the rest of our needs.

 

[The Rabbi]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

Enron was involved in the highly regulated energy market. They were highly regulated by the SEC, among other agencies.
So what we see is that regulation is no guarantee against fraud or crime. Ergo most regulation is useless.
Thanks for proving the opposite of whatever you thought you were proving.

 

[The Rabbi]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

Yet so many on the far right feel anything short of a privatize health care system is "Socialism". How do we fix stupidity?

You could start by killing yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Enron! A prime example of why Private and unregulated business should never run our system of health care.

You know, I totally agree 'business' should never run our system of health care. Nor should government. The last thing we want it designate a central authority to dictate something as important and personal as our health care.

Yet so many on the far right feel anything short of a privatize health care system is "Socialism". How do we fix stupidity?

They are correct. How do we fix your stupidity?

 

[Billy000]

You idiot that refers to people who get healthcare they were supposed to pay for but never did. Where do you think those costs went?

The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.

And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.

Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

 

[bripat9643]

The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.

And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.

Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

You have to a fucking moron not to understand that to eliminate profit you have to eliminate the competition and create a government monopoly, and every economist in this universe will tell you that monopoly always means less efficient and higher cost. The whole reason we supposedly have anti-trust laws is to prevent monopolies from forming, but you liberal turds want to create the biggest monopoly in the universe and you believe it will be cheaper.

 

[Mathbud1]

The costs went to the taxpayer to subsidize all of the ER's who care for those without insurance, and all of the clinics that cared for those without insurance. And me, as a tax payer, was fine with it.

And just an FYI......it does not refer to the people who got healthcare who were SUPPOSED to pay for it. It refers to people who got healthcare but were not OBLIGATED to pay for it.

Are you aware that you just supported the argument against you by admitting that? Probably didn't realize it.

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

 

[bripat9643]

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

Liberals think brilliant talented people will be willing to work like borrowed mules their entire lives solely because of their love for their fellow man.

 

[Billy000]

Even so it hardly says much for our system now does it?

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

My ideal socialized system could be profit driven to a degree. There are systems like this. Canada is to an extent. Ours however is all about the money. That is why it sucks.

 

[Mathbud1]

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

My ideal socialized system could be profit driven to a degree. There are systems like this. Canada is to an extent. Ours however is all about the money. That is why it sucks.

If eliminating profit motivation is such an ideal thing, why not go whole hog?

If you are going to halfway it, where do you draw the line? Who is allowed to make a profit?

 

[Billy000]

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

My ideal socialized system could be profit driven to a degree. There are systems like this. Canada is to an extent. Ours however is all about the money. That is why it sucks.

If eliminating profit motivation is such an ideal thing, why not go whole hog?

If you are going to halfway it, where do you draw the line? Who is allowed to make a profit?

Obviously because "going the whole hog" would make it difficult to pay for adequate care. There of course would need to be a degree of private fund. We agree to that extent. My beef is a system driven completely by profit which is what we have now.

 

[Mathbud1]

Actually, it does.

It means that those "with" have no issue supporting those "without" as it pertains to healthcare.

Not sure why you see that as a bad thing.

25% of the people who even receive cancer treatment in this country put off necessary treatments simply because they can't afford it. That doesn't even count the people with cancer who don't get cancer treatment at all.

Oh and the tax payers are paying for very expensive treatments the patient didn't pay for.

As opposed to your ideal system in which the tax payers pay for ALL treatments?

In my ideal system the medical costs wouldn't be profit driven. That's what would separate it. That is why the patient pays for so much.

Who will provide the medical devices and medical care if profit is removed from the equation? The company I work for, which makes medical devices, won't stick around for no profit. Do you think pharmaceutical companies will? Doctors?

Making medical devices isn't easy. Pharmaceuticals are, I'm sure, similar. Studying to be a doctor isn't easy. Who is going to want to do these things for no profit?

Liberals think brilliant talented people will be willing to work like borrowed mules their entire lives solely because of their love for their fellow man.

It seems in the minds of some that the more ability you have the more you owe your fellow man. Your ability, in essence, makes you a slave to the needs of those with less ability. These same people claim to be the ones who opposed the actual institution of slavery.

 

[Political Junky]

Here's a fun fact: polls show 92% of Canadians prefer the Canadian healthcare system over the US system.

Pack your shit and move to Canada then, take a bunch of your liberal America haters with you.

Wow, how original.