What is wrong with some people

[bigrebnc1775]

Why does a person want to live in a socialist system? Why do they want more government control of their lives? Is it because they want handout's from the government? Do they wish to surrender their individual rights for a few scraps from the governments table of taxes? Open your eyes people just look at the new Healthcare Law, there are a lot of mandates in it, requirements to buy something that you may not need or want. Could it be that people are afraid of failure is that why they crave socialism?

what folks criticizing american policy fail to recognize is that the government is not afforded the blind ideology which polarizes die hard capitalists and marxists. instead, the US has implemented policies which work, arguably better than many other nations. this is particularly the case when you look at the whole of our history and the whole of the outcome.

putting aside these childish ideals, and looking at history, one might argue that healthcare in the US is the greatest available on the planet. the history behind our public/private healthcare and the solvency of our relatively unique all-american HMO system betrays a foundation in heavy-handed government mandates.

the dissenters who claim anyything and everything is socialism, don't know their history, don't know their government.

Histroy has a way of repeating itself

 

[bigrebnc1775]

i lived in danmark for a year....it wasn't so bad.....everyone seemed pretty happy and content....

I lived in Germany from 1982-1984 most complacent people are pretty happy

the standard of life seemed pretty good to me from top to bottom .... education...healthcare....a job....holidays.....place to live.....great mass transit....great looking women.....excellent beer....

How long ago were you there? It looks at least from some news reports that all those freebies are catching up.

 

[my2¢]

Why does a person want to live in a socialist system? Why do they want more government control of their lives? Is it because they want handout's from the government? Do they wish to surrender their individual rights for a few scraps from the governments table of taxes? Open your eyes people just look at the new Healthcare Law, there are a lot of mandates in it, requirements to buy something that you may not need or want. Could it be that people are afraid of failure is that why they crave socialism?

what's wrong with you? why all this mindless blathering?

I sort of enjoy the mindless blathering. Without the mindless blathering these domestic policies I'm against would be totally insufferable.

 

[manu1959]

I lived in Germany from 1982-1984 most complacent people are pretty happy

the standard of life seemed pretty good to me from top to bottom .... education...healthcare....a job....holidays.....place to live.....great mass transit....great looking women.....excellent beer....

How long ago were you there? It looks at least from some news reports that all those freebies are catching up.

i lived there quite some time ago ... and yes i am aware that some are taking advantage and that they have immigration issues .... but it is a small nimble country that will make the required adjustments ..... not sure socialisim can work on a large scale such as the us......

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the standard of life seemed pretty good to me from top to bottom .... education...healthcare....a job....holidays.....place to live.....great mass transit....great looking women.....excellent beer....

How long ago were you there? It looks at least from some news reports that all those freebies are catching up.

i lived there quite some time ago ... and yes i am aware that some are taking advantage and that they have immigration issues .... but it is a small nimble country that will make the required adjustments ..... not sure socialisim can work on a large scale such as the us......

Exactly.

 

[manu1959]

How long ago were you there? It looks at least from some news reports that all those freebies are catching up.

i lived there quite some time ago ... and yes i am aware that some are taking advantage and that they have immigration issues .... but it is a small nimble country that will make the required adjustments ..... not sure socialisim can work on a large scale such as the us......

Exactly.

not to mention the self indulgent, spolied brat, entitled attitude of americans would abuse the shit out of the system ....

 

[ConHog]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

Thank you

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Nothing wrong with cut and paste it keeps you from having to click on the link.

Nothing wrong with copying and pasting as long as you understand the content and it is applicable to the discussion. What you did was blindly pull out the first thing on google you found and copied it here, even though it had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the actual current policy. Pasting relevant information: good. Blindly pasting things you didn't read because you're an ignorant tool: bad.

But anyway your need for new information just to be proven wrong is fine by me[/B]
As Medicaid Payments Shrink, Patients Are Abandoned
As Medicaid Payments Shrink, Patients Are Abandoned - NYTimes.com

The medicaid changes have nothing to do with the new health policy. Things have been downhill for this for some time now. Once again you copy and paste junk that is in no way related to the actual topic. What a fool.

You figured out you needed something from this year, but didn't actually bother reading the article. If you did, you would have noticed it has nothing to do with the new healthcare policy, and in fact it states "The inadequacy of Medicaid payments is severe enough that it has become a rare point of agreement in the health care debate between President Obama and Congressional Republicans.".

How is it that you can be this misguided and yet believe your opinion has any value?

The ObamaCare bill, according the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office assumes that 8 million employees will lose their insurance coverage. That assumption is derived from the thought that employers will save money by taking a government penalty or fee to drop their employer sponsored health insurance.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf

Can you quote any part of the article that supports that? The figure "8 million" doesn't appear anywhere in that analysis. It is also a ridiculous claim, as "employers will save money by" NOT PAYING FOR HEALTH INSURANCE NOW. You think companies would only drop people once there is a fee involved? They could do it now for free! Quote something relevant or stop trying.

Documents reveal AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping employer-sponsored benefits
AT&T, Verizon, others, thought about dropping health plans - May. 5, 2010

Whoa-ho! You got an article that is both recent and about the actual policy! Took you 3 fails first, but you got here. So let's see what the article says. Companies may or may not drop coverage for their employees. May or may not. Depending on how the numbers work out. So you're saying that there is the possibility in the future that healthcare will move back to personal responsibility? A possibility?! OH NO! Well, it's still better than the crap you've presented so far.

So how do we ensure that the fees associated with dropping employees outweigh the cost of providing healthcare? Well..... the corporate fees could just be increased. Problem solved. Thanks for playing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why is it imperative to the 'American Way of Life' that the bureaucracy we hire to track our health care financial paperwork be private?

Pay the doctors well enough to attract more doctors to the profession?

Pay the nurses well enough to attract more nurses to the profession?

Pay for the latest and greatest in technology and health care public education?

Pay the bureaucrats that manage the system of paying the bills bonuses in the 7 figure range?

Why do you need a bureaucrat to tell you how to mange your healthcare? what is mine is mine even my healthcare I do not need a bureaucrat to tell me how to maintain my health.
Yes pay the doctors and nurses through services rendered. but with this healthcare law the doctors and nurses will be paid by a certain price, set by bureaucrats.
The latest and greatest in technology comes from the private sector, with this healthcare law even that will come to slow halt.

Unless you are paying cash for health care services as they are rendered, you have a bureaucracy tracking the premiums you pay and payments made to the providers on your behalf.

If you are so healthy or so rich that you can manage your health care costs without using 'insurance', I you.

If you are like most of us you must pick a bureaucracy to manage those accounts.

Public: Proven to cost you less than 5% by Social Security and Medicare.

Private: Proven to cost you more than 20%​

Too bad the insurance lobby was influential enough to get the public option off the table - now we truly have no choice but to use our health care dollars to fund corporate jets for executives who are wealthy enough self-insure.

Chumps. Every fucking one of us.

 

[ConHog]

Why is it imperative to the 'American Way of Life' that the bureaucracy we hire to track our health care financial paperwork be private?

Pay the doctors well enough to attract more doctors to the profession?

Pay the nurses well enough to attract more nurses to the profession?

Pay for the latest and greatest in technology and health care public education?

Pay the bureaucrats that manage the system of paying the bills bonuses in the 7 figure range?

Why do you need a bureaucrat to tell you how to mange your healthcare? what is mine is mine even my healthcare I do not need a bureaucrat to tell me how to maintain my health.
Yes pay the doctors and nurses through services rendered. but with this healthcare law the doctors and nurses will be paid by a certain price, set by bureaucrats.
The latest and greatest in technology comes from the private sector, with this healthcare law even that will come to slow halt.

Unless you are paying cash for health care services as they are rendered, you have a bureaucracy tracking the premiums you pay and payments made to the providers on your behalf.

If you are so healthy or so rich that you can manage your health care costs without using 'insurance', I you.

If you are like most of us you must pick a bureaucracy to manage those accounts.

Public: Proven to cost you less than 5% by Social Security and Medicare.

Private: Proven to cost you more than 20%​

Too bad the insurance lobby was influential enough to get the public option off the table - now we truly have no choice but to use our health care dollars to fund corporate jets for executives who are wealthy enough self-insure.

Chumps. Every fucking one of us.

Are you insane? Proven to cost who less? Let's actually look at this.

First of Social Security has nothing to do with health care, so let's remove them from the conversation.

Now let's talk Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are so far in the red that they can't even see straight, who will eventually have to pick up that tab? Oh yeah you and I, or more precisely our children................


It is just a simple function of math to see that if COST is our only concern then putting the government in charge of ANYTHING is a bad idea. So that argument is invalidated.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

Thank you

For what? Pointing out the obvious, that insurance is private and siphoning off at least 15% of the health care dollars spent in this country for insurance executive bonuses?

Well.... I reckon it does need to be pointed out. Why would anyone cheer for 15% higher costs? Just doesn't make any sense.....

I'll thank you too! Thank you!

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why do you need a bureaucrat to tell you how to mange your healthcare? what is mine is mine even my healthcare I do not need a bureaucrat to tell me how to maintain my health.
Yes pay the doctors and nurses through services rendered. but with this healthcare law the doctors and nurses will be paid by a certain price, set by bureaucrats.
The latest and greatest in technology comes from the private sector, with this healthcare law even that will come to slow halt.

Unless you are paying cash for health care services as they are rendered, you have a bureaucracy tracking the premiums you pay and payments made to the providers on your behalf.

If you are so healthy or so rich that you can manage your health care costs without using 'insurance', I you.

If you are like most of us you must pick a bureaucracy to manage those accounts.

Public: Proven to cost you less than 5% by Social Security and Medicare.

Private: Proven to cost you more than 20%​

Too bad the insurance lobby was influential enough to get the public option off the table - now we truly have no choice but to use our health care dollars to fund corporate jets for executives who are wealthy enough self-insure.

Chumps. Every fucking one of us.

Are you insane? Proven to cost who less? Let's actually look at this.

First of Social Security has nothing to do with health care, so let's remove them from the conversation.

Now let's talk Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are so far in the red that they can't even see straight, who will eventually have to pick up that tab? Oh yeah you and I, or more precisely our children................


It is just a simple function of math to see that if COST is our only concern then putting the government in charge of ANYTHING is a bad idea. So that argument is invalidated.

Social Security is the largest 'Insurance' organization in history so it is VERY relevant to the conversation. Medicare IS a public option, reserved for the folks that the private insurance companies don't want: folks over 65 and folks who are disabled - win win for the insurance lobby.

Social Security runs at 97% to 98% efficiency, Medicare runs right at 97%. The most efficient private insurance bureaucracies run at 75% to 80% efficiency.

The choice is yours..... oh yeah, sorry about that - the choice is NOT yours because the insurance lobby was quite successful in killing off a true 'Public Option'.

You lose! (As do I and everyone else who buys insurance because it's a good health care decision, considering the potential in our lives for a health-care expenditure beyond our savings accounts.)

 

[ConHog]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

Thank you

For what? Pointing out the obvious, that insurance is private and siphoning off at least 15% of the health care dollars spent in this country for insurance executive bonuses?

Well.... I reckon it does need to be pointed out. Why would anyone cheer for 15% higher costs? Just doesn't make any sense.....

I'll thank you too! Thank you!

What gives YOU the right to decide what companies should do with THEIR profits? Do you know that health care insurance as an industry makes a 3.4% profit? That's pretty freaking low.

Health Insurance Industry's Profit Margins Rank #86 -- Seeking Alpha


Demonizing health care insurance companies does NOTHING to address the cost of health care. Now if the cost of say heart surgery dropped down to say $50K instead of $150K and the insurance companies were still expecting the same premiums you would have a legitimate complaint, BUT this bill doesn't do a fucking thing to try actually lower costs.

Why are you lefties so quick to demonize private industry without offering a single solution of your own? We're seeing the EXACT same thing with the oil spill now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

Thank you

For what? Pointing out the obvious, that insurance is private and siphoning off at least 15% of the health care dollars spent in this country for insurance executive bonuses?

Well.... I reckon it does need to be pointed out. Why would anyone cheer for 15% higher costs? Just doesn't make any sense.....

I'll thank you too! Thank you!

What is with you leftist? You are complaining about what a company does with it's money after you have given your money to them was services rendered. Who in the hell do you think you are? How would you like it if your boss said something about the way you spend your pay check, and threaten to fire you over it?

 

[ConHog]

Unless you are paying cash for health care services as they are rendered, you have a bureaucracy tracking the premiums you pay and payments made to the providers on your behalf.

If you are so healthy or so rich that you can manage your health care costs without using 'insurance', I you.

If you are like most of us you must pick a bureaucracy to manage those accounts.

Public: Proven to cost you less than 5% by Social Security and Medicare.

Private: Proven to cost you more than 20%​

Too bad the insurance lobby was influential enough to get the public option off the table - now we truly have no choice but to use our health care dollars to fund corporate jets for executives who are wealthy enough self-insure.

Chumps. Every fucking one of us.

Are you insane? Proven to cost who less? Let's actually look at this.

First of Social Security has nothing to do with health care, so let's remove them from the conversation.

Now let's talk Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs are so far in the red that they can't even see straight, who will eventually have to pick up that tab? Oh yeah you and I, or more precisely our children................


It is just a simple function of math to see that if COST is our only concern then putting the government in charge of ANYTHING is a bad idea. So that argument is invalidated.

Social Security is the largest 'Insurance' organization in history so it is VERY relevant to the conversation. Medicare IS a public option, reserved for the folks that the private insurance companies don't want: folks over 65 and folks who are disabled - win win for the insurance lobby.

Social Security runs at 97% to 98% efficiency, Medicare runs right at 97%. The most efficient private insurance bureaucracies run at 75% to 80% efficiency.

The choice is yours..... oh yeah, sorry about that - the choice is NOT yours because the insurance lobby was quite successful in killing off a true 'Public Option'.

You lose! (As do I and everyone else who buys insurance because it's a good health care decision, considering the potential in our lives for a health-care expenditure beyond our savings accounts.)

Social Security is no more a health care provider than they are an auto insurance provider.

But just for shits and giggles post a link showing that ANY government organization runs at anywhere close to a 90% efficiency, I certainly don't believe it.

A public option needed to be killed off because despite your please of a 98% efficiency rating mediaire is in the red insuring just a small percentage of Americans.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Social Security is the largest 'Insurance' organization in history so it is VERY relevant to the conversation. Medicare IS a public option, reserved for the folks that the private insurance companies don't want: folks over 65 and folks who are disabled - win win for the insurance lobby.

Social Security runs at 97% to 98% efficiency, Medicare runs right at 97%. The most efficient private insurance bureaucracies run at 75% to 80% efficiency.

The choice is yours..... oh yeah, sorry about that - the choice is NOT yours because the insurance lobby was quite successful in killing off a true 'Public Option'.

You lose! (As do I and everyone else who buys insurance because it's a good health care decision, considering the potential in our lives for a health-care expenditure beyond our savings accounts.)

Would you care to show a source to your claim that social security is the largest Insuranse organization and the rest of your claimns Give a source .

Now you complain about the insureance company' spending their money anyway they choose. Where is your out rage when the Government is spending money that isn't theirs? Now which is crazy?
Insureance company spending money that is their you complain

The Government wasteful spending (slush funds payoffs) of money which isn't theirs and you say nothing. And you want them to run your healthcare package.

 

[ConHog]

Social Security is the largest 'Insurance' organization in history so it is VERY relevant to the conversation. Medicare IS a public option, reserved for the folks that the private insurance companies don't want: folks over 65 and folks who are disabled - win win for the insurance lobby.

Social Security runs at 97% to 98% efficiency, Medicare runs right at 97%. The most efficient private insurance bureaucracies run at 75% to 80% efficiency.

The choice is yours..... oh yeah, sorry about that - the choice is NOT yours because the insurance lobby was quite successful in killing off a true 'Public Option'.

You lose! (As do I and everyone else who buys insurance because it's a good health care decision, considering the potential in our lives for a health-care expenditure beyond our savings accounts.)

Would you care to show a source to your claim that social security is the largest Insuranse organization and the rest of your claimns Give a source .

Now you complain about the insureance company' spending their money anyway they choose. Where is your out rage when the Government is spending money that isn't theirs? Now which is crazy?
Insureance company spending money that is their you complain

The Government wasteful spending (slush funds payoffs) of money which isn't theirs and you say nothing. And you want them to run your healthcare package.

No, he's convinced me. I have changed my mind. There SHOULD be a government ran health care insurance option. BUT it should be an option and it should absolutely be written in that stone that this program can not access ANY government funds that they themselves did not collect. In other words they must run in in the black or go out of business. I'd give it 3 years top before they fold.

 

[antagon]

Hmmm so some are justifying socialized healtchare by claiming it's no different than socialized education or socialized law enforcement? Well here's one difference, and it's a a significant one. Schools and police departments are government entities as are roads, etc etc. Hospitals and private insurance companies are just that, private.

The idea of affordable health care for all is a noble one, and personally I don't see the problem with requiring everyone to have some form of insurance; but this notion that this law will keep people from being denied health care is ridiculous. The idea that this bill needed to be so large, and so complex in order to accomplish the goal of lowering costs is ridiculous. There is only one reason to make something so cumbersome, and that is to make it difficult to get to the bottom of what's really going on. Even the devil said "well have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Say what???????

Healthcare could have been "reformed" by simply declaring it to be a public utility and regulating the costs the same way the government now does with utilities. That has worked for well over 40 years in the utility industry and would have worked here, but Obama needed more so that he could begin the process of converting us over to a single payer health care system, which has never worked.

And lastly, can anyone tell me of a single government program that has EVER accomplished its goals on time and on budget? This bill hadn't even been implemented yet when the CBO came back and said well our initial estimates were off, this bill will cost MUCH more than we originally thought.

better this bill than your idea of government price-fixing. marketized healthcare is vastly superior to that. markets have worked for well over 200 years in the united states.

that you feel this is some step toward a single payer sistem is nothing short of ignorance. that i contend that it is a logical and creative progression of our existing healthcare system - arguably the best on the planet - is supported by consideration of the HMO act of 1973, which is responsible for the nature of private care in the US. in just about every developed nation on the planet, private health industry pales in proportion to the public system.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

A public option needed to be killed off because despite your please of a 98% efficiency rating mediaire is in the red insuring just a small percentage of Americans.

Except a public option would run on the funds of the patrons, much like a private insurance does, instead of taxes, as the other programs do.

This post applies to you. Just because two programs have something in common does not make them the same.