Question for the anti-healthcare crowd

[jreeves]

Yes, we should deregulate the medical industry.

That worked really well with the financial industry.

Considering practically every other industry in the US is deregulated, deregulation seems to work perfectly well, troll.

Every other industry in the U.S. is deregulated?

Practically...yes

By regulation, I am referring to price controls.

 

[Vanquish]

However, if my choice is between greedy corporations and an inept government controlled
program...............I don't currently have any complaints about my greedy corporate plan.

I hope that remains true the next time you have a claim.

Only had one issue where Aetna (my old insurance) denied a surgery. I had my sinuses rooter rootered so I could breath normally again. They claimed it was "pre-existing". I went round with them for six months before I contacted the Virginia Insurance Commission (the state regulatory agency - notice they don't provide insurance and I believe every state has one). Within one week Aetna reversed their ruling and everyone was paid. Try that approach next time you have a claim rejected. Wow! A state government advocacy/oversight agency that does it's job without having to provide the actual coverage.
Now try that with a government run social program. If you are familliar with dealing with government run social programs, you know that you are lucky to even have them review your claim within the next fiscal year and make a ruling within the next 5 years. No thanks

LOL So you use a beneficial action by a government regulatory commission to explain why a government regulatory commission is bad? Amazing logic there. Or not.

Back on the first page someone said "no one is against health care reform, we're just not for yadda yadda yadda"

First of all, yes there are lots of people trying to block ANY healthcare reform at all. They want the status quo to remain, despite the fact that people are going bankrupt every day based on medical care costs...and that places like Los Angeles have urgent medical care stations 9that were meant for developing countries but became necessary for our own people) visited by thousands without healthcare. I love it when Beck says, "oh yes, people are dying in the streets because of healthcare" when they are.

Second, I'm not saying take it or leave the country, but the level to which many of you are distrustful of the government is ridiculous. If it were truly as bad as you make it out to be, I'm at a loss as to why you don't move somewhere with a better system?

Finally, let's go back to the competition / innovation discussion. Yes, competition spurs innovation, but innovation spurs costs. The reason why the rest of the world is doing better than us from an efficiency standard is because we do a lot, if not most, of the innovative research here. But that costs money, my friends. Let's flip this for a second. Do you really think that if the government just offers a competing option to existing plans that innovation will stop? Take that further...do you think if there was ONLY a public option that research into how to cure people of various diseases would stop?

If you do, you're not facing reality.

 

[auditor0007]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

s0n.......your mama obviously never told you, "You get what you pay for!!"

Alot of the hopelessly duped in this country automatically assume that there is endless virtue in government. These same people trust them implicitly to have the best interests of the people.

These same people are quick to automatically demonize private enterprise......because they loath any kind of profit. Profit is part of any kind of market system and with it comes supreme quality, ie: the current health care system in America which is by far the best medical care in the world. Competition is a wonderful things s0ns..............

Then............there is government.

Social Security?? ............. A JOKE

AMTRAK???.........A JOKE ( humongous deficits )

The US Post Office............BEYOND A JOKE ( 2 billion in debt JUST THIS YEAR!!)

Medicare...........Ooooooooooooops!!! No phrase to describe.


Oh........but of course, government is a slam dunk to operate 16% of the US economy efficiently!!!



People like the author of this thread loath anybody who is successful. These same people are among the 21%er's........miserable fcukk ups in life that will go to their graves miserable and sayng and doing anything they can to fcukk over the successful. Even if it means screwing large segments of our society who will be rationed health care under a govt run system.

Assholes........let me be clear. $$ are not spent on healthy people. $$ are spent on the sick. Its always been that way. Now...........suddenly, the government is going to make sure health care gets less expensive while treating far more people?? Ummm............sorry, but only k00ks can come up with math that works that way!! Rationed care is inevitable under Universal Health Care...........100% certainty. The elderly will get royally fcukked just to make the #'s at all plausible. 100% certainty.


Is a free market system perfect?? Lets put it this way.........some people ( conservatives) realize that life frequently comes down to tradeoffs: suck vs. suckier.

In this case.............government run health care = the suckier.

Its not even debatable...........particularly if you are somebody who currently HAS health insurance ( in which case, if you support Obama's plan............your a fcukking mental case)

If it weren't for government intervention, insurance companies wouldn't insure half the people they do because they are too high risk. Given the opportunity, insurance companies will deny coverage to anyone who could become a risk, and they will do everything possible to get a sick person off of their books. All the while, they are driving rates through the roof as administrative costs eat up more than 25% of our healthcare dollars.

Governement run healthcare may not be the answer, but insurance run healthcare has been nothing short of a disaster, and it's only going to get worse. Please tell everyone here how we are going to pay for healthcare as it continues to grow as a percent of our GDP from the current 17% to nearly 50%. At what point will people say "we can't afford this anymore?".

 

[Navy1960]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

Sorry to jump into this so late Centrism, however your assumption is that every person that does not support the healthcare measures proposed by the Administration and being championed by some on the hill somehow means those in opposition are not in favor of healthcare reform. In fact, I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who would argue that bringing down the costs of healthcare so that those that need it and want it is a bad thing. It's how you wish that to be done is where we all part company. You see basically, those on one side of the debate see healthcare as a right that the people should have and the Govt. should provide, while those on the other side see it as an intrusion into one's private life and liberty by the Govt. If healthcare were a right granted to you and every citizen in this nation then for-profit healthcare would not exist in this nation , but to many on one side of this debates chagrin it does and in fact I'd say to the 2.3 million people it employs they might say it's not a bad thing at all. I have long said that those that wish the govt. to provide them mandatory healthcare as a "right" need only try and pass a constitutional Amendment that does just that, then this debate would be a mute point.

Keep this in mind though, when your making monsters out of an insustry that represents almost 20% of our economy and employs more people than the auto industry , your not making monsters out of big fat cats that make billions for the most part. your making mosters out of average everyday people who work hard and are the middle class that the Administration claims to be working hard for. Let me ask you something, is it better let's say to reform the business of healthcare insurance so that prices and competetion will make insurance more widely available for everyone or is it it better to saddle our children and grandchildren with a debt to a foreign nation for many many years to come? One costs little the other costs a lot and still one will not destroy personal liberty and the other does at the expense of the common good. One costs little the other costs too much, so perhaps this is the difference, in the end though don't assume that people who don't support this all inclusive govt. healthcare program to not wanting healthcare reform because nothing could be more wrong.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Question: Do you really think that government bureaucrat is going to permit you the 95% effective medicine for your problem when he can give you the 72% medicine at half the cost?

As long as those who can afford the difference in cost of the 95% effective medicine are allowed to buy it, I'd have no problem with such a system. For those who can barely afford food and shelter, the 72% medicine is certainly better than none.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

s0n.......your mama obviously never told you, "You get what you pay for!!"

Alot of the hopelessly duped in this country automatically assume that there is endless virtue in government. These same people trust them implicitly to have the best interests of the people.

These same people are quick to automatically demonize private enterprise......because they loath any kind of profit. Profit is part of any kind of market system and with it comes supreme quality, ie: the current health care system in America which is by far the best medical care in the world. Competition is a wonderful things s0ns..............

Then............there is government.

Social Security?? ............. A JOKE

AMTRAK???.........A JOKE ( humongous deficits )

The US Post Office............BEYOND A JOKE ( 2 billion in debt JUST THIS YEAR!!)

Medicare...........Ooooooooooooops!!! No phrase to describe.


Oh........but of course, government is a slam dunk to operate 16% of the US economy efficiently!!!



People like the author of this thread loath anybody who is successful. These same people are among the 21%er's........miserable fcukk ups in life that will go to their graves miserable and sayng and doing anything they can to fcukk over the successful. Even if it means screwing large segments of our society who will be rationed health care under a govt run system.

Assholes........let me be clear. $$ are not spent on healthy people. $$ are spent on the sick. Its always been that way. Now...........suddenly, the government is going to make sure health care gets less expensive while treating far more people?? Ummm............sorry, but only k00ks can come up with math that works that way!! Rationed care is inevitable under Universal Health Care...........100% certainty. The elderly will get royally fcukked just to make the #'s at all plausible. 100% certainty.


Is a free market system perfect?? Lets put it this way.........some people ( conservatives) realize that life frequently comes down to tradeoffs: suck vs. suckier.

In this case.............government run health care = the suckier.

Its not even debatable...........particularly if you are somebody who currently HAS health insurance ( in which case, if you support Obama's plan............your a fcukking mental case)

If it weren't for government intervention, insurance companies wouldn't insure half the people they do because they are too high risk. Given the opportunity, insurance companies will deny coverage to anyone who could become a risk, and they will do everything possible to get a sick person off of their books. All the while, they are driving rates through the roof as administrative costs eat up more than 25% of our healthcare dollars.

Governement run healthcare may not be the answer, but insurance run healthcare has been nothing short of a disaster, and it's only going to get worse. Please tell everyone here how we are going to pay for healthcare as it continues to grow as a percent of our GDP from the current 17% to nearly 50%. At what point will people say "we can't afford this anymore?".

You bring up an excellent point. Most of us want reform of some kind. Insurance companies, HMOs, etc. are certainly part of what's wrong with our health care system just as much as big government taking over would be wrong for our health care...you can also include employers and lawyers in this mix....all are 3rd parties that have differing agendas that get in between the actual patient and his physician...

I am all for a WalMart style delivery system for health care as mentioned by Huckabee....costs would be lowered and everyday health care would become a smorgasboard available at low cost to everyone...yet innovation can still freely exist and those who wanted to pay for the more expensive options could do so. Other than major medical catastrophic insurance (which could be very low in cost) we have NO REAL NEED for insurance companies or government bureaucrats or employers telling us and our doctors what to do or what kind of medical services we should have... everybody should be able to buy his own health care services just as he would buy an automobile or auto insurance.

We need to get rid of all the middlemen that suck us dry (and hike the costs).....and go back to an open free market system...while Obama's plan promises the moon it would only become the very death of our advanced cutting edge health care and our FREEDOM to pick and choose our own health care options for ourselves and for our loved ones...and become the end of the American way of doing things...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Question: Do you really think that government bureaucrat is going to permit you the 95% effective medicine for your problem when he can give you the 72% medicine at half the cost?

As long as those who can afford the difference in cost of the 95% effective medicine are allowed to buy it, I'd have no problem with such a system. For those who can barely afford food and shelter, the 72% medicine is certainly better than none.

Sure it is...and a poor person could buy his 72% medicine at a store for far less than the 95%. As time went by the cutting edge 95% medicine would likely be lowered in price and become more available to everybody in the market.

If a person is totally destitute then he could apply for welfare or charity from someplace. There will always be some people in this financial situation. However, that is NO REASON to revamp the entire American system of health care and switch to socialized medicine for everybody else who works and is able to pay his own way if health care costs become reasonable as they should be...

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I am all for a WalMart style delivery system for health care as mentioned by Huckabee....costs would be lowered and everyday health care would become a smorgasboard available at low cost to everyone...yet innovation can still freely exist and those who wanted to pay for the more expensive options could do so. Other than major medical catastrophic insurance (which could be very low in cost) we have NO REAL NEED for insurance companies or government bureaucrats or employers telling us and our doctors what to do or what kind of medical services we should have... everybody should be able to buy his own health care services just as he would buy an automobile or auto insurance.

And where does this leave, for example, a public school teacher who gets cancer?

 

[Vanquish]

"open free market system" THERES NO SUCH THING. The government will always place regulations on the economy to make sure that market participants don't exploit unlawful advantages of consumers.

To quote what I posted in another thread:

There's a myth that some form of eternal competition is in itself is a natural state. Competition without regulation will not result in there being competition for very long - someone is going to win the competition.

The rational objective of any company in a competitive market is to increase their market share as much as possible at the expense of their rivals. If there is no regulation in place then the end-game of any economy is for there to be monopoly - the most efficient company will always end up totally dominating the market. Once they do that then they do not need to be efficient and do not need to provide a particularly good service.

The government needs to regulate to protect against monopoly and preserve competition...and yes that applies to health care.

 

[Annie]

I am all for a WalMart style delivery system for health care as mentioned by Huckabee....costs would be lowered and everyday health care would become a smorgasboard available at low cost to everyone...yet innovation can still freely exist and those who wanted to pay for the more expensive options could do so. Other than major medical catastrophic insurance (which could be very low in cost) we have NO REAL NEED for insurance companies or government bureaucrats or employers telling us and our doctors what to do or what kind of medical services we should have... everybody should be able to buy his own health care services just as he would buy an automobile or auto insurance.

And where does this leave, for example, a public school teacher who gets cancer?

With whatever she chose to have. Used to be insurance was called 'hospitalization' and was used for just that. Now with glasses/contacts/mental health/dentists/orthodontists etc. added on, the costs have skyrocketed. Most people could pay for yearly physicals and dental exams. Lots of folks not so long ago went to the doctor when sick, for tetanus boosters and school exams. I'm all for getting mammograms, paps, prostate exam, those with need colon cancer screening, but with the insurance deal, people run to doc before even giving their body chance to fight and many take meds they don't need.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

And where does this leave, for example, a public school teacher who gets cancer?

With whatever she chose to have.

Meaning what, if she can't afford the same chemo treatment that a lawyer can?

Go on, I can't wait to hear this...

 

[NO!bama08]

First of all....we are not "anti-healthcare". We are anti government run healthcare. The reason is that anything run by the private sector is better than anything the government can run. How many $400 hammer stories do you have to hear? This is nothing more than a power grab so the government can provide healthcare to drug dealers, crack whores and illegal aliens in exchange for their votes. I do not want my healthcare diluted in order to provide the above with healthcare they never deserved. There are a few left uncovered that deserve to be covered. Let's tweak the system, not overhaul it and screw it up for those of us that have worked all our lives to to be taken care of in our old age.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

Hey stupid, name the corporations that provide care.

 

[toomuchtime_]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

No, private insurance companies can also work to create greater internal efficiencies and negotiate more favorable contracts with providers. Of course government run health insurance plans can also do this, but as health care costs continue to rise, a government run plan will be under constant pressure to either raise taxes, run larger deficits or cut services. In addition, if pressure mounts to increase spending on other programs, such as education, climate or defense, a government run program may come under pressure to cut services to free up money for the other program.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

I do not want my healthcare diluted in order to provide the above with healthcare they never deserved.

Now you want to say that certain people don't deserve health care? Holy crap, you are scarier than you think Obama is.

Even prisons provide healthcare...

 

[Annie]

And where does this leave, for example, a public school teacher who gets cancer?

With whatever she chose to have.

Meaning what, if she can't afford the same chemo treatment that a lawyer can?

Go on, I can't wait to hear this...

Seriously, are you unable to comprehend the premise of 'buying' services? Would a 21 year old 'buy' cancer coverage? Maybe not, playing the odds, much like actuaries do. However if the 'kid' knows that purchasing that item will cost over 2 times the amount forever if bought in 10 years? Might make that purchase.

On the other hand, if kids are raised do I want orthodontia coverage? No.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Seriously, are you unable to comprehend the premise of 'buying' services? Would a 21 year old 'buy' cancer coverage? Maybe not, playing the odds, much like actuaries do. However if the 'kid' knows that purchasing that item will cost over 2 times the amount forever if bought in 10 years? Might make that purchase.

On the other hand, if kids are raised do I want orthodontia coverage? No.

Oh, so now you're talking about buying coverage, not buying the services (treatment) directly. Nice backpedal.

It still doesn't get your argument off the hook, because the public school teacher might be "forced" to "play the odds" for lack of funds.

 

[Annie]

Seriously, are you unable to comprehend the premise of 'buying' services? Would a 21 year old 'buy' cancer coverage? Maybe not, playing the odds, much like actuaries do. However if the 'kid' knows that purchasing that item will cost over 2 times the amount forever if bought in 10 years? Might make that purchase.

On the other hand, if kids are raised do I want orthodontia coverage? No.

Oh, so now you're talking about buying coverage, not buying the services (treatment) directly. Nice backpedal.

It still doesn't get your argument off the hook, because the public school teacher might be "forced" to "play the odds" for lack of funds.

No 'backpedaling' I was addressing the topic brought up by another.

Do you know what the average public school teacher makes? Do you think that wouldn't increase if medical benefits are not provided?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's all part and parcel of the same mentallity... if you don't support Obama, you're racist. If you don't support gay marriage, you're homophobic. If you don't support nationalizing health care, you're anti healthcare.
You get the picture. It's called demonization. Screw 'em, laugh it off.. call me whatever name you wish.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

It's all part and parcel of the same mentallity... if you don't support Obama, you're racist. If you don't support gay marriage, you're homophobic. If you don't support nationalizing health care, you're anti healthcare.
You get the picture. It's called demonization. Screw 'em, laugh it off.. call me whatever name you wish.

I don't have to call you names: your posts speak for themselves, and they do a great job of insulting you.