Five Flaws of "Obamacare"

[veritas]

In reality there is no rural electrification program either.........SFW?

 

[gcomeau]

What if Medicare (which was, and still is, a huge "cash cow" for providers), Medicaid, KidCare/FamilyCare, SCHIP, SSI, SS, State Benefit, CHCPE, ConnMAP and ConnPACE (and even FEHB and private industry insurers if you like) were all consolidated into ONE GROUP HEALTH PLAN and every CITIZEN was eligible to participate, at a negotiated, regulated (cooperative) group rate? Negotiated and regulated by partners from each of the stake-holders? Would that not be "reform"? Wouldn't you think the Administration would have been open to such a suggestion? They did ask for input after all, and they sure as hell don't know what they're doing (see above).

That would be a significant improvement over current proposals being tossed around in Congress provided the group plan was either publicly administered by a non profit government agency, or was administered in a HEAVILY regulated manner.

You don't think they're on the wrong track? Opinion duly noted....

Allow me to repeat the very first sentence I wrote in my response:

While I am not myself a fan of the "public option"

What exactly did that tell you about whether I think they're on the right or wrong track? The heritage foundation is simply more wrongheaded. Opposing a reform proposal on the grounds that it will work too well and you don't like it so don't want it to succeed is childish and idiotic. And that's exactly what they're doing when they make these ridiculous complaints about it not being "fair" that the government will be competing with private insurers. Cry me a river if they don't think it's 'fair', if it works better it works better.

I don't actually personally think the public option will work all that much better, certainly not enough better to solve the underlying issues that need addressing... but that's beside the point. They obviously think it'll out-compete private insurers, which means they DO think it will work significantly better, and they're crying about it because they have an ideological preference for the free market..

 

[KittenKoder]

The FDA can't survive the way it has been if their cash cows leave the pasture, they'll have to deal with another branch of government and comparative effectiveness. This bill will go a long way in doing that. Who nailed Pfizer? It wasn't the FDA.

So then you want to simply get rid of all healthcare, because that's the only way to cut off their "cash flow" ... Pfizer offers a lot of free medications to those who cannot afford it, and who are not too lazy to fill out the applications. The meds that killed people are all FDA approved, while many safer alternatives were not allowed into the US by the FDA because they couldn't pay the bribes. Also, who do you think will pay for the lawsuit? Pfizer? No, the insurance company, then how does the insurance company get the money to pay for that? By raising it's prices. Stop the FDA and people would have a choice, yes they would have to get off their lazy asses and learn about the medications they are taking, they will have to *gasp* research their own medical care again, but it will be affordable because of the competition.

 

[veritas]

Stop the FDA, you're a broken record. And wrong about how to do it.

 

[gcomeau]

In reality, there is only one flaw in the ObamaCare, TeddyCare, LibCare, or whatever you might want to call it. Some may balk at this just a little bit but it's not stated anywhere in the Constitution that the government can provide health insurance to the citizens. Not listed in the "Rules of the Road" so to speak. So, my question is this: Why are we allowing our government to do this?

It's not written in the constitution that the government can do a lot of things we need it to do. It's a guiding document, not a comprehensive instruction manual with every conceivable "Do " and "Don't" of government in an encyclopedic list or something.

That's why the Constitution creates this thing called the Congress. a.k.a., the "Legislative" branch. They proceed to create laws which fill in all the fine details the Constitution doesn't cover.

 

[KittenKoder]

Stop the FDA, you're a broken record. And wrong about how to do it.

The truth doesn't change it's tune. Ever. So yes, stop the FDA, it's the only way to lower prices, it's the only way to get people to stop being lazy about their healthcare, it's simply the only viable solution. There is no middle ground here, there is no one higher than them in the US, if it was "big pharma" then why is it so much cheaper in other countries? None of them have the FDA though.

 

[DamnYankee]

And gcomeau dismantled the Heritage Foundation, which is like WND with stuffier prose and more expensive suits.

No, all GCom posted were opinions.

gcomeau's posts taken on the whole are not opinions. Since he/she has not made that many posts of yet [I eagerly await more, btw] you could search their posts and go read them. They are facts and not opinions. There is absolutely no reason to handle healthcare through private insurers. None. The so called "greatest country on the planet" is dysfunctional. The only reason we don't have single payer is because of one industry. An industry whose scam has shown to be past its due date.

Yet, immediately after I responded, you declared that post "the win" and have not as yet addressed that response -- only your distaste for the OP.

 

[DamnYankee]

The FDA can't survive the way it has been if their cash cows leave the pasture, they'll have to deal with another branch of government and comparative effectiveness. This bill will go a long way in doing that. Who nailed Pfizer? It wasn't the FDA.

You did not read what I wrote, did you?

 

[veritas]

1. The public "option." Both proposals would create a government-run insurance plan which proponents claim would foster honest competition among private insurers. But how can there be fair competition when one of the players -- Washington -- is both writing the rules and playing the game? What's more, this scheme could lead millions of Americans to lose their private health insurance.

There is no competition among private insurers. And if the public option services those that don't have private insurance, then they are not competing anyway, because those people don't have/can't get private insurance. So that argument is bogus. So the government is offering something that anyone can buy into, and the insurance companies are afraid it might be better, and they might lose customers???? BUT it will be cheaper and better so we shouldn't do it? Pick a side. I'd rather pay more taxes than pay premiums to an insurance co, money is money.

Millions of Americans are already losing their insurance. Their premiums are getting higher and higher and the benefits are being cut and the claims are being denied. And if they are unemployed they lose their insurance and their ability to pay. Over half of the bankruptcies are due to people that have insurance. So what good is insurance if it isn't an assurance???

 

[veritas]

2. Centralized regulation. Both the House and Senate bills would result in sweeping and complex federal regulation of health insurance. This would take oversight away from states and concentrate it in Washington -- and this oversight is best left at the state level.

Why is oversight best left at the state level? Why? So we can have 50 different sets of laws to deal with the same thing? How is that better? It clogs the courts and creates legal delays that benefit insurance companies and lawyers, not citizens. It would be less complex to have one set of insurance laws than 50 different sets.

 

[veritas]

3. Greater dependency on government. Both bills would expand existing government health care programs and introduce massive new taxpayer-funded subsidies to buy health insurance. This would leave millions of Americans dependent on government for their health care.

Millions of people are dependent on the government now. It would probably save money to consolidate all the various plans and make them all speak the same language. Again, money is money, I'd rather pay taxes than pay money to a for profit entity whose best interests are served if they don't have to pay out and will do anything they possibly can to delay paying or deny paying for what I need.

 

[veritas]

4. Employer mandate. The plans would force employers to provide coverage for all employees or face a massive tax. These "Play-or-Pay" mandates will raise prices, stifle economic growth and particularly hurt low-wage earners.

Well if employers are not providing it, then the tax goes into the public plan which will cover the employees anyway, including low wage earners. Employers and business can adapt their models to get around it and you know they will. We already have contract workers and subcontractors and riffs and the like. The stifling of economic growth is a joke. What stifles economic growth is the underregulation of big money paper pushers who produce nothing and skim all the cream, and in this latest debacle they took the milk and the pail too.

 

[veritas]

5. Individual mandate. Both bills require that all Americans purchase health insurance. Those without coverage or whose plans don't meet the new federal standards would face tax penalties. Special interests are sure to "lobby intensively to expand the legally mandated health benefits, medical treatments and procedures, and drugs that all Americans must buy under penalty of law."

Taken together or individually, these flaws would inflict serious damage on an industry that represents one-sixth of our nation's economy.

Both bills mandate and therefore provide for people that don't have coverage. A baseline of what is to be offered is established. People in Alabama will get what people in NY get. Is that what states rights is really about? Keeping the Bible belt stuck back in the "war of northern aggression" era? I think it is. Nobody has to buy any drugs under the penalty of law. Nobody has to accept treatment.

The only serious damage inflicted will be on big pharma and Inscos and big chemicals. I like that.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry Ver, all you have posted is dreamlike theories. However Medicare/Medicaid has taught us that such a system will result in corruption. You are putting all the power into one hand, and that never turns out well.

 

[veritas]

Sorry kk but you are one of the most irrelevant, illogical posters on this site. You contradict yourself every five minutes and scream FDA!

FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry kk but you are one of the most irrelevant, illogical posters on this site. You contradict yourself every five minutes and scream FDA!

FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!
FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA! FDA!

Point to one contradiction about the FDA that I have posted?

 

[KittenKoder]

Better yet Veritas ... show exactly how attacking the insurance companies will drive the prices down. I'll wait.

 

[veritas]

I never made either statement. Perhaps you should re-read. I'll wait.

 

[KittenKoder]

I never made either statement. Perhaps you should re-read. I'll wait.

Okay, I'll reword it ... how is any other solution besides getting rid of the FDA mafia power going to help bring down medical costs?

 

[gcomeau]

Okay, I'll reword it ... how is any other solution besides getting rid of the FDA mafia power going to help bring down medical costs?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...cessary-but-is-it-sufficient.html#post1478928

That wasn't quite written for the purpose of answering that specific question, but it contains some of the information requested.