Healthcare Reform Report Card = Obamacare vs. the best insurance on the planet

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Republicans say "good" and give a "high five". Because they hate socialism.

Actually Republicans say lets introduce capitalism so Americans can be rich in health care they way they are the richest in the world in everything else.

They hate socialism because it slowly starved 100 million to death. Liberals are brainwashed zombies who cant comprehend that any more than a muslim fanatic can comprehend the sort comings of his religion. If billions can be Muslim fanatics then they can be liberals too.


Odd isn't it that we are the richest in the world except in the one industry that liberals control! Can any liberal figure that one out?

 

[starcraftzzz]

are you talking about in all industries? Why or why not. Are you a communist?

No dumbass we are talking about health care. Come back when you are on pills

well if it works in healthcare why not in all industries??? I've asked you 4 times now?? Why are you so afraid to try?

Because health care is not the same as all other industries dumbass The problem here is that you are a retard who does not contain the ability to think

 

[starcraftzzz]

You still did not explain why private health spending is 4 times that of public despite having shittier outcomes

why be so afraid to explain what private health spending you are talking about? You think VA Medicare Schip Medicare, insurance regulation etc etc is private spending??

see why we are positve a liberal will slow. If one is slow liberalism is the position they naturally adopt, by default.

I've already posted the data to you a thousand times The VA medicare etc all cost around 40% less then private health care despite having better health out comes.
So why are you afraid to accept reality? Is it because you have no friends so admitting youa re wrong would destroy your ego and send you into a depression. Is it because no women will sleep with you? What is it?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Republicans say "good" and give a "high five". Because they hate socialism.

Actually Republicans say lets introduce capitalism so Americans can be rich in health care they way they are the richest in the world in everything else.

Yet republicans oppose obamacare which brings competition to the health care market. So like always you aer wrong

[
They hate socialism because it slowly starved 100 million to death

See this is the problem you are such a retard that you thin Stalin killing people and telling farmers they had to stop farming to produce industrial goods is the same thing as the government regulating health care

[
. Liberals are brainwashed zombies who cant comprehend that any more than a muslim fanatic can comprehend the sort comings of his religion. If billions can be Muslim fanatics then they can be liberals too.

You're the retard who tells us that the most capitalist health care system in the modern word is actually the most socialized one

[
Odd isn't it that we are the richest in the world except in the one industry that liberals control! Can any liberal figure that one out?

Actually Europe has living standards 40% higher then America but whose actually counting oh wait I am....

 

[Trakar]

but we can force them to compete with national healthcare hospitals, clinics and pharmacies.

are you talking about in all industries? Why or why not. Are you a communist?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I am talking about national healthcare, not national healthcare insurance. If you are asking if I support the nationalization of all industry, my response is, no. I only advocate direct government control of certain public neccessity services and products that are unneccessarily complicated and most often compromised when controlled by agencies whose primary interest in the product is the production of private sector profit.

 

[Trakar]

keep in mind that capitalism is far more efficient than socialism. Do you need that explained too??

capitalism is competitive. This is why Red China just switched to it to save 60 million from slow liberal starvation. Are you going to tell them they made a mistake and should go back to being communists?

Red China is still a Communist State.

 

[starcraftzzz]

but we can force them to compete with national healthcare hospitals, clinics and pharmacies.

are you talking about in all industries? Why or why not. Are you a communist?

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I am talking about national healthcare, not national healthcare insurance. If you are asking if I support the nationalization of all industry, my response is, no. I only advocate direct government control of certain public neccessity services and products that are unneccessarily complicated and most often compromised when controlled by agencies whose primary interest in the product is the production of private sector profit.

Edwards response will be "you libtard USSR millions died communist bad"

 

[Trakar]

and the far right of the party's irresponsibility.

why would advocating freedom from liberal government be irresponsible when it is our founding idea?????????? Are you a communist?

A "founding idea?" Exactly what in the US Constitution makes you feel that it is promoting any form of capitalism.

You do realize that modern US capitalism is a neoliberal mixed economic system don't you? Adam Smith advocates basically what we see in modern America in "Wealth of Nations":

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." ... "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"..."Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

It is not just an honor to pay taxes, it is a patriotic obligation. Only ungrateful and scurrilous freeloaders would even consider not contributing their fair dues to the support of a system that brings such an incredible wealth of value to its citizenry. It might be seen as bordering on treason to even contemplate, much less to conspire with others, to minimize one's obligations. I tend to consider it an expression of greed, inspired by the character flaw of avarice.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

A "founding idea?" Exactly what in the US Constitution makes you feel that it is promoting any form of capitalism.

OMG!!!! the entire purpose is to promote voluntary or free interactions between people. Thats exactly what capitalism is!! The commerce clause was designed to promote free interactions on equal terms between the states. Now you know why the Founders stayed away from business when they wrote the Constitution and why they did so again when they governed under it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Adam Smith advocates basically what we see in modern America in "Wealth of Nations":

Adam Smith of course has always been the patron saint of libertarian conservatives. Wen Jiaboa said China had him in mind when they switched to capitalism. Sorry but you have to be an idiot and illiterate.

“The first duty of the sovereign…protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies…The second duty…protecting, as far as possible, every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it…The third and last duty…erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which, though they may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society, are, however, of such a nature that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals, and which it therefore cannot be expected that any individual or small number of individuals should erect or maintain.”

“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”

“Even the most ordinary degree of kindness or beneficence…cannot, among equals, be extorted by force…justice…only hinders us from hurting our neighbor…We may often fulfill all the rules of justice by sitting still and doing nothing.”

“I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation…”

“The man of system…seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board…in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it…if they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.”

“…no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient [for] the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it…”

“The statesman who should attempt to direct private people would…assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.”

“…public prodigality and misconduct…may consume [so much]…that all the frugality and good conduct of individuals may not be able to compensate the waste…occasioned by this violent and forced encroachment.”

“After all the proper subjects of taxation have been exhausted, if the exigencies of the state still continue to require new taxes, they must be imposed upon improper ones.”

“Let us not…rashly conclude that [society] is capable of supporting any burden, nor even be too confident that she could support, without great distress, a burden a little greater than what has already been laid upon her.”

“An inquisition into every man=s private circumstances…in order to accommodate the tax to them, watched over all the fluctuations of his fortunes, would be a source of such continual and endless vexation as no people could support.”

“The uniform, constant and uninterrupted effort of every man to better his condition…is frequently powerful enough to maintain the natural progress of things toward improvement, in spite both of the extravagance of government, and of the greatest errors of administration…it frequently restores health and vigor to the constitution, in spite, not only of the disease, but of the absurd prescriptions of the doctor.”

What would Adam Smith’s response to those who want to turn him into a mascot for big government? “All systems either of preference or of restraint therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest in his own way.”

The government needed to support a system of natural liberty is minuscule. It does not require trillions of dollars in taxes and onerous regulations each year, or the abuse of logic and intentionally vague weasel-words (such as “need” and “fair”) to justify it. So Smith, far from concluding that government spending is too timid and its corresponding burdens too low, would contradict the charlatans making such claims, and go far in the other direction, rejecting as indefensible the vast majority of what the government already does.









"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." ... "The rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"..."Every tax, however, is, to the person who pays it, a badge, not of slavery, but of liberty."

It is not just an honor to pay taxes, it is a patriotic obligation. Only ungrateful and scurrilous freeloaders would even consider not contributing their fair dues to the support of a system that brings such an incredible wealth of value to its citizenry. It might be seen as bordering on treason to even contemplate, much less to conspire with others, to minimize one's obligations. I tend to consider it an expression of greed, inspired by the character flaw of avarice.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bfgrn]

Best healthcare in the world if you can afford it. How many millions of Americas had insurance 10 years ago but don't today?

How many people had good insurance 10 years ago but today their insurance sucks?

Let me let you in on a little secret. Remember when the majority of your insurance was paid by you and your company and when you went to the doctor it was relatively inexpensive? The insurance companies are, as I'm sure a lot of you know, moving to the new system. YOU pay $3000 out of pocket if you are single and $6000 if you are a couple FIRST and then the insurance company kicks in after that.

And you would think this new way would be A LOT cheaper monthy than the old way but its actually more expensive. Se we are paying a HUGE monthly fee just to have insurance, that doesn't even kick in until you max out. What fucking coverage is that?

At least Obama made them give preventative care and annual checkups for free.

The Healthcare companies are gobbling up too much of our GDP. No wonder no one is buying any boats, cars, jewelry, etc. We're all saving up for the next time we get sick.

P.S. People who don't have insurance are costing each of us an extra $1000 a year. I say that's justification for the mandate.

That's all part of the Republican's plan. The number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills. Republicans say "good" and give a "high five". Because they hate socialism.

No, they don't high-five and say good to bankruptcy. But in the name of free markets, they do ignore common sense that would save individuals and American businesses a lot of money.

Nailed it kiwiman!

Marxists and Marketists...cut from the same cloth

The closest twin we have in America today to the communists and Marxists in Russia are the 'Marketists'; conservatives, libertarians and 'free marketeers' who have turned government nonintervention and 'laissez faire' into a religion. It has created 'malaise faire'

Blind Faith

For a country that has prided itself on its resourcefulness, the inability to address our problems suggests something deeper at work. There is something, powerful but insidious, that blinds us to the causes of these problems and undermines our ability to respond. That something is a set of beliefs, comparable to religious beliefs in earlier ages, about the nature of economies and societies. These beliefs imply the impropriety of government intervention either in social contexts (libertarianism) or in economic affairs (laissez faire).

The faithful unquestioningly embrace the credo that the doctrine of nonintervention has generated our most venerated institutions: our democracy, the best possible political system; and our free market economy, the best possible economic system. But despite our devotion to the dogmas that libertarianism and free market economics are the foundation of all that we cherish most deeply, they have failed us and are responsible for our present malaise.

The pieties of libertarianism and free markets sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

It may seem odd, given the parabolic arc of our financial markets and the swelling chorus of paeans to free market economics, but despite the important role of the market, purer free market economies have consistently underperformed well-focused mixed economies. In the latter part of the nineteenth century the mixed economies of Meiji Japan and Bismarck’s Germany clearly outperformed the free market economies of Britain and France. Our own economy grew faster when we abandoned the laissez faire of the 1920s and early 1930s for the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. It has become increasingly sluggish as we have moved back to a purer free market. Data of the past few decades show that our GNP and productivity growth have lagged those of our trading partners, who have mixed economies characterized by moderate government intervention.

The persistently mediocre track record of laissez faire casts doubt on the claim that an economy free from government interference invariably maximizes the wealth of society. In fact, there are sound reasons the pure free market must underperform well-focused mixed economies.

But despite laissez faire’s mediocre track record and despite powerful arguments that it cannot possibly provide what it promises, the notion of the unqualified benefit of the free market has become deeply embedded in our mythology. Apologists have exulted in claims that glorify free market mythology at the expense of reality, and also at the expense of society. Free market principles, even though they have failed in economics, have been eagerly applied to sectors ranging from politics to education, where they have contributed to societal dysfunction.

One politically popular myth, that free market economics and government non-intervention provide the basis for true democracy, flies in the face of history.

As we moved toward an ideology driven 'free market' ONLY belief economically, and away from a mixed economy, the results have been disastrous.

Over the past half-century we have seen lower tax rates and less government interference. We have come a long way toward free enterprise from the proto-socialist policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Since the Kennedy Administration we have reduced the marginal tax rate on our highest incomes from the 91% that remained in effect from the 1940s into the mid-1960s (and a brief peak of 94% during World War II) to 28% in the 1986 tax code. Yet our economic growth has slowed.

Decade/Average Real GNP/per Capita GNP Growth
1960-1969 4.18% 2.79%
1970-1979 3.18% 2.09%
1980-1989 2.75% 1.81%
1990-1994 1.95% 0.79%
(Maddison, Monitoring the World Economy 1820-1992 p. .183, 197)

Despite our adoption of the most enlightened free market policies, our performance resembles that of a declining Great Britain in the late nineteenth century.

Free market apologists contend the closer we come to pure laissez faire, the better. But there is little evidence for even this position. The U.S. has come closer to laissez faire than most other countries, especially since the Reagan Administration. If free market policies are the best economic policies then we should have experienced the most robust growth in the world during this period. But this has not happened. We have been outstripped by our trading partners.

Myths Of The Free Market

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Trakar]

A "founding idea?" Exactly what in the US Constitution makes you feel that it is promoting any form of capitalism.

OMG!!!! the entire purpose is to promote voluntary or free interactions between people. Thats exactly what capitalism is!! The commerce clause was designed to promote free interactions on equal terms between the states. Now you know why the Founders stayed away from business when they wrote the Constitution and why they did so again when they governed under it.

Please identify the "right to conduct commerce" section of the commerce clause. Look at all the private harvesting of profit that goes on upon federal (the people's) lands, how is this not a capitalist obsenity? There is no right to own property in the consititution, merely protections for those who do own property. The only real mention of property in the US Constitution is the concept that US citizens shall not be deprived of Life, Liberty or Property except through the due processes of the law. I see nothing in the US Constitution that institutes, authorizes or even encourages any particular economic system, much less anything that particularly or specifically appears to be designed to accommodate or support a capitalist economic system.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. I see nothing in the US Constitution that institutes, authorizes or even encourages any particular economic system, much less anything that particularly or specifically appears to be designed to accommodate or support a capitalist economic system.

thats because as a liberal you are very very slow. The Founders read Smith, Say, De Tracy. Voluntary capitalist economic relationships between free people were assumed since that was the order of the day that no one questioned when they wrote the Constitution or governed under it. The Commerce Clause was designed to promote capitalist trade among the states.

The few enumerated powers were used to promote capitalism and therefore prohibited big liberal government monarchy or big liberal government socialism. Catching on now??

 

[oldernwiser]

In point of fact, the Commerce Clause does NOT promote or endorse any particular economic model.

What it DOES do is to allow the state and federal government the power to control and otherwise regulate how commerce is conducted both between the states and foreign nations - among other things.

 

[Trakar]

. I see nothing in the US Constitution that institutes, authorizes or even encourages any particular economic system, much less anything that particularly or specifically appears to be designed to accommodate or support a capitalist economic system.

thats because as a liberal you are very very slow.

Wrong ideology bucko, I am a registered Republican and see no value in liberalism.

The Founders read Smith, Say, De Tracy.

I daresay they read much more than this blindered pittance of economic consideration, but I am less interested in what they read than in what they wrote. That said, the founding fathers are known to have been most influenced in their considerations and writings by one of their own, namely Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures."

Voluntary capitalist economic relationships between free people were assumed since that was the order of the day that no one questioned when they wrote the Constitution or governed under it. The Commerce Clause was designed to promote capitalist trade among the states.

The few enumerated powers were used to promote capitalism and therefore prohibited big liberal government monarchy or big liberal government socialism. Catching on now??

You assert such with apparent conviction, the question is, are your supporting references and evidences compelling?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I daresay they [the founders]read much more than this blindered pittance of economic consideration

if so why be so afraid to say what they read???

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the founding fathers are known to have been most influenced in their considerations and writings by one of their own, namely Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures."

wrong wrong wrong! Hamilton was a Federalist. They were defeated by the Republicans never to be heard from again until the communist inspirded New Deal. Aaron Burr delivered New York to the Republicans and then shot the liberal Hamilton dead. What a pity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You assert such with apparent conviction, the question is, are your supporting references and evidences compelling?

Do you see any evidence that our Founders promoted monarchy or socialism or big liberal government under their Constitution?? If so share it with us? If so it would be the most obvious thing written in the Constitution and seen in the actions they took while governing under their Constitution.

 

[Trakar]

I daresay they [the founders]read much more than this blindered pittance of economic consideration

if so why be so afraid to say what they read???

What "fear" are you projecting into my words? What in them signifies "fear" to your interpretation?

 

[Trakar]

the founding fathers are known to have been most influenced in their considerations and writings by one of their own, namely Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures."

wrong wrong wrong! Hamilton was a Federalist. They were defeated by the Republicans never to be heard from again until the communist inspirded New Deal. Aaron Burr delivered New York to the Republicans and then shot the liberal Hamilton dead. What a pity.

even apart from the distortions and inaccuracies, all of this is completely irrelevent to my statement.