Blue Dogs vs Libs

[Chris]

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare..

Still sticking with that same old lie? In another thread, it was pointed out that, among others, Germany, Belgium and Holland have multiple-payer systems. You even acknowledged in another thread that Germany has multiple payer. Now you're back to the same old lie.

No, the single payer system refers to the fact that all citizens can enroll in the system. It doesn't mean all other systems are outlawed.

I know it hurts to be on the wrong side of history. You have my sympathy.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The call for a single payer system is part of an awakening in America to the truth.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system doesn't have to pay admin overhead, marketing, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Why would a millionaire go overseas for treatment? The rich like Kennedy get great healthcare in this country. The poor get none until they are at death's door. Is Kennedy's life more important than that of a person without millions of dollars? Thanks for proving my point.

And as far as innovation goes, go and look at the people who have won the Nobel prizes for medicine in the last 20 years. Most of them are from nonprofit universities, and a lot of them are from overseas.

And to say that every other industrialized nation keeps its healthcare costs down because of "American technology" is laughable. Their costs are kept down by not paying admin overhead, marketing costs, and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Likewise their doctors don't have to hire a huge staff to keep up with paperwork for 150 different companies. Plus there are fewer lawsuits since no one goes bankrupt trying to pay for their treatment. 60% of bankruptcies in this country are caused by healthcare costs. And our businesses are at a huge competitive disadvantage because they have to pay employee healthcare costs, and businesses in the other industrialized countries don't have to. Our system is totally fucked up.

If government run health care systems kept their costs down because of lower overhead costs and because they didn't have a profit motive, then non profit insurance companies here in the US would have had the same experience, but although non profits have been around for decades, their premiums are about the same as for profit insurance companies.

Government run insurance plans keep their costs down by paying lower reimbursements to medical providers, making lower capital investments in newer technologies and equipment and by rationing some health care services.

 

[Chris]

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Why would a millionaire go overseas for treatment? The rich like Kennedy get great healthcare in this country. The poor get none until they are at death's door. Is Kennedy's life more important than that of a person without millions of dollars? Thanks for proving my point.

And as far as innovation goes, go and look at the people who have won the Nobel prizes for medicine in the last 20 years. Most of them are from nonprofit universities, and a lot of them are from overseas.

And to say that every other industrialized nation keeps its healthcare costs down because of "American technology" is laughable. Their costs are kept down by not paying admin overhead, marketing costs, and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Likewise their doctors don't have to hire a huge staff to keep up with paperwork for 150 different companies. Plus there are fewer lawsuits since no one goes bankrupt trying to pay for their treatment. 60% of bankruptcies in this country are caused by healthcare costs. And our businesses are at a huge competitive disadvantage because they have to pay employee healthcare costs, and businesses in the other industrialized countries don't have to. Our system is totally fucked up.

If government run health care systems kept their costs down because of lower overhead costs and because they didn't have a profit motive, then non profit insurance companies here in the US would have had the same experience, but although non profits have been around for decades, their premiums are about the same as for profit insurance companies.

Government run insurance plans keep their costs down by paying lower reimbursements to medical providers, making lower capital investments in newer technologies and equipment and by rationing some health care services.

No, single payer systems do have cost efficiency advantages.

To say that a single payer system would have the same overhead as 150 seperate insurance companies is ridiculous. Likewise doctors don't have to hire as many staff people if they are only dealing with a single payer.

And don't kid your self. Every system rations services.

For profit insurance companies won't cover a pre-existing condition. So if you have a medical problem, they don't want to insure you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Why would a millionaire go overseas for treatment? The rich like Kennedy get great healthcare in this country. The poor get none until they are at death's door. Is Kennedy's life more important than that of a person without millions of dollars? Thanks for proving my point.

And as far as innovation goes, go and look at the people who have won the Nobel prizes for medicine in the last 20 years. Most of them are from nonprofit universities, and a lot of them are from overseas.

And to say that every other industrialized nation keeps its healthcare costs down because of "American technology" is laughable. Their costs are kept down by not paying admin overhead, marketing costs, and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Likewise their doctors don't have to hire a huge staff to keep up with paperwork for 150 different companies. Plus there are fewer lawsuits since no one goes bankrupt trying to pay for their treatment. 60% of bankruptcies in this country are caused by healthcare costs. And our businesses are at a huge competitive disadvantage because they have to pay employee healthcare costs, and businesses in the other industrialized countries don't have to. Our system is totally fucked up.

If government run health care systems kept their costs down because of lower overhead costs and because they didn't have a profit motive, then non profit insurance companies here in the US would have had the same experience, but although non profits have been around for decades, their premiums are about the same as for profit insurance companies.

Government run insurance plans keep their costs down by paying lower reimbursements to medical providers, making lower capital investments in newer technologies and equipment and by rationing some health care services.

No, single payer systems do have cost efficiency advantages.

To say that a single payer system would have the same overhead as 150 seperate insurance companies is ridiculous. Likewise doctors don't have to hire as many staff people if they are only dealing with a single payer.

And don't kid your self. Every system rations services.

For profit insurance companies won't cover a pre-existing condition. So if you have a medical problem, they don't want to insure you.

There is no reason to think a government run system would achieve greater efficiencies than a non profit insurance company does, so there must be other reasons why they keep their costs down. The only other ways they can do this are to pay less to doctors and hospitals, invest less in acquiring newer technologies and equipment or offering fewer medical services.

All systems do ration health care services, but not to the same extent and not always in the same ways. The UK, for example, rations health care services by not providing some very expensive services and by limiting the total cost of services to treat a particular illness over a period of time, and Canada rations care by making patients wait for some services that Canadian doctors have complained may be unsafe as well as smaller investments in newer technologies and equipment and extremely low reimbursement rates for medical providers. In the US we provide some of the world's highest quality health care to those who are insured by either public or private plans, but we ration services by not providing them to everyone.

Most people only know the health care system their own country has, but Americans living in Canada has the advantage of being able to compare their own first hand experience with both systems, and they rate the US system as superior in terms of the quality of health care services they received, but rate the Canadian system as superior in terms of fairness and cost. There are no free lunches, if you want universal health care and lower costs at the same time, then you will pay for it with either lower quality of care or fewer services.

Americans in Canada prefer U.S. health care: poll

 

[alan1]

The call for a single payer system is part of an awakening in America to the truth.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system doesn't have to pay admin overhead, marketing, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Why would a millionaire go overseas for treatment? The rich like Kennedy get great healthcare in this country. The poor get none until they are at death's door. Is Kennedy's life more important than that of a person without millions of dollars? Thanks for proving my point.

And as far as innovation goes, go and look at the people who have won the Nobel prizes for medicine in the last 20 years. Most of them are from nonprofit universities, and a lot of them are from overseas.

And to say that every other industrialized nation keeps its healthcare costs down because of "American technology" is laughable. Their costs are kept down by not paying admin overhead, marketing costs, and profit for 150 different insurance companies. Likewise their doctors don't have to hire a huge staff to keep up with paperwork for 150 different companies. Plus there are fewer lawsuits since no one goes bankrupt trying to pay for their treatment. 60% of bankruptcies in this country are caused by healthcare costs. And our businesses are at a huge competitive disadvantage because they have to pay employee healthcare costs, and businesses in the other industrialized countries don't have to. Our system is totally fucked up.

Exactly, why would a millionaire go overseas for health care to a single payer health care system? Do you get it yet? Try and keep up.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My favorite healthcare moment was when a women told Obama she didn't want any socialized medicine, and they better not touch her Medicare.

Priceless...

That's a typical dumbass liberal for you.

Yes, a dumbass liberal who depends on Medicare...incredible...

She should drag her frail body out on the street, gain a full time job, and earn health insurance like everyone else!

Once upon a time, she would probably have had private insurance. That is, until leftists decided that we really needed the public option of Medicare - you know, just for a few poor old folks - and ended up shoving 95% of the seniors in America onto it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, a dumbass liberal who depends on Medicare...incredible...

She should drag her frail body out on the street, gain a full time job, and earn health insurance like everyone else!

Why would you be so hardhearted about her? Are you liberal? Learn some compassion.

I would wager the old woman did not understand what health care refrom means. She may be neither liberal nor conservative. The irony is that she is dead set against the Government doing anything to reform health care, because she is dependent on an exisiting health care program. She has been mislead by the many extremes that she has heard from the talking heads on TV.

It is a time proven ploy. Confusion breeds discourse, which eventually breeds failure.

She seems less confused than Obama, actually, since HE told the AARP that his plan wouldn't touch Medicare, but the plan itself says that it will take $400 billion out of Medicare over the next ten years.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charming partisan insults aside, I wonder if the seeming surge in calls for completely nationalized healthcare is part of a wider political game. Obama's plan would be the "compromise" between the two extremes in that scenario.

Personally, I support Obama's health care initiative, and I think the children's healthcare initiative here in Illinois was quite positive.

Can you tell us what, specifically, you support about the plan? If possible, please reference the specific part of the bill. Thanks.

 

[DiveCon]

That's a typical dumbass liberal for you.

No, that's a typical dumbass conservative.

Conservatives don't show up to his press conferences, they know they won't be allowed to ask questions.
When are you going to realize that he controls his his press conferences and town hall meetings? Are you this stupid in real life, or do you just act this way on the internet?

i truely believe the answer to that is YES
no way he could be this stupid online and not be the same IRL

 

[Care4all]

My favorite healthcare moment was when a women told Obama she didn't want any socialized medicine, and they better not touch her Medicare.

Priceless...

That's a typical dumbass liberal for you.

Yes, a dumbass liberal who depends on Medicare...incredible...

She should drag her frail body out on the street, gain a full time job, and earn health insurance like everyone else!

Maybe I am not getting some kind of joke you are trying to pass off Jim...?/?

BUT YOU COULDN'T BE MORE OFF BASE?
with your comment regarding this woman on Medicare....

More than likely she and her husband and every 65 year old whether they be democratic or republican in the room paid for their medicare insurance for 45 years of their lives...
Why did YOU imply that she is sitting on her ass expecting a free ride?

she paid for her ride and so did most all seniors on medicare paid their medicare taxes, receiving absolutely NOTHING for those taxes paid for this insurance until they are 65 years old?


To imply these people are expecting something handed to them and should work for it is about the silliest thing I have ever heard, THEY DID WORK FOR IT!


care

 

[editec]

Charming partisan insults aside, I wonder if the seeming surge in calls for completely nationalized healthcare is part of a wider political game. Obama's plan would be the "compromise" between the two extremes in that scenario.

Personally, I support Obama's health care initiative, and I think the children's healthcare initiative here in Illinois was quite positive.

The call for a single payer system is part of an awakening in America to the truth.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system doesn't have to pay admin overhead, marketing, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Medical research doesn't depend on private health insurance companies.

Yes we have excellent HC here if you can afford it.

As does every other industrialized nation on earth.

 

[Care4all]

The call for a single payer system is part of an awakening in America to the truth.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system doesn't have to pay admin overhead, marketing, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Medical research doesn't depend on private health insurance companies.

Yes we have excellent HC here if you can afford it.

As does every other industrialized nation on earth.

excellent POINT on the insurance companies not creating a single thing in medical research advancement or spending a dime on research.

 

[Care4all]

Yes, a dumbass liberal who depends on Medicare...incredible...

She should drag her frail body out on the street, gain a full time job, and earn health insurance like everyone else!

Why would you be so hardhearted about her? Are you liberal? Learn some compassion.

I would wager the old woman did not understand what health care refrom means. She may be neither liberal nor conservative. The irony is that she is dead set against the Government doing anything to reform health care, because she is dependent on an exisiting health care program. She has been mislead by the many extremes that she has heard from the talking heads on TV.

It is a time proven ploy. Confusion breeds discourse, which eventually breeds failure.

yes, i agree

 

[EriktheRed]

There is a battle brewing. The Bluedogs are going to be challenged by the Liberals in the Democratic Party. The Public Option portion of the reform bill is in big trouble and the Liberals of the party are targeting the Bluedogs of their party.

I just hope that the battle doesn't end up costing the country any chance of health care reform. I expect the GOP is very happy about the discourse in the Democratic Party. There is no lock step with the Dems. The extreme wings of the Democratic Party will either forge a compromise or kill the entire effort.

Yes, the Repubs, some Dems (probably more than we know) and the all of the healthcare related industries are all happy. I'm still kinda glad, though, that the Liberal Dem caucus showed some backbone on this.

 

[anna]

sad but true!!! if they elected a nitwit noncitizen to control their every move. they'll vote your azz in!!! lol

 

[Chris]

sad but true!!! if they elected a nitwit noncitizen to control their every move. they'll vote your azz in!!! lol

Look everybody!

A nitwit birther!!!

 

[alan1]

The call for a single payer system is part of an awakening in America to the truth.

Every other industrialized nation has a single payer healthcare system, and they pay HALF per person what we pay for healthcare. Why? Because a single payer system doesn't have to pay admin overhead, marketing, and profit for 150 different insurance companies.

They also don't have companies inventing the next generation of life saving drugs and medical equipment in spite of an FDA that tries to hold them back. They also don't have as many surgeons on the cutting edge of perfection. They keep their costs down by relying on the US for the best new medical technology.
Tell me something Chris, if you had brain cancer, would you go to Duke University for treatment (like Mr Kennedy did), or would you go to some other country that offers government sponsored "free" health care? If government sponsored single payer systems are so fucking great, how come you never hear about some US politician going to some foreign country for medical treatment. Explain that, dumbass.

Medical research doesn't depend on private health insurance companies.

Yes we have excellent HC here if you can afford it.

As does every other industrialized nation on earth.

The US still has the best in cutting edge medical technological advances. More so than any other industrialized nation. And no, it isn't because of health insurance companies (I agree with that point). It also isn't because of a benevolent government. The advances in medical technology come from brilliant minds, not congress.

 

[JimH52]

More than likely she and her husband and every 65 year old whether they be democratic or republican in the room paid for their medicare insurance for 45 years of their lives...
Why did YOU imply that she is sitting on her ass expecting a free ride?

she paid for her ride and so did most all seniors on medicare paid their medicare taxes, receiving absolutely NOTHING for those taxes paid for this insurance until they are 65 years old?


To imply these people are expecting something handed to them and should work for it is about the silliest thing I have ever heard, THEY DID WORK FOR IT!


care

Yup, and they will keep that coverage with the Bill proposed. The GOP is desiminating false claims that the old will be allowed to die under health reform. There is no doubt that many elderly under medicare will be very upset when they hear the assorted lies.

The lies will continue though, because the GOP has nothing NOTHING else to offer, other than to say NO.

 

[DiveCon]

More than likely she and her husband and every 65 year old whether they be democratic or republican in the room paid for their medicare insurance for 45 years of their lives...
Why did YOU imply that she is sitting on her ass expecting a free ride?

she paid for her ride and so did most all seniors on medicare paid their medicare taxes, receiving absolutely NOTHING for those taxes paid for this insurance until they are 65 years old?


To imply these people are expecting something handed to them and should work for it is about the silliest thing I have ever heard, THEY DID WORK FOR IT!


care

Yup, and they will keep that coverage with the Bill proposed. The GOP is desiminating false claims that the old will be allowed to die under health reform. There is no doubt that many elderly under medicare will be very upset when they hear the assorted lies.

The lies will continue though, because the GOP has nothing NOTHING else to offer, other than to say NO.

have you actually read those parts?
or are you just blowing smoke out your ass AGAIN

 

[Cecilie1200]

More than likely she and her husband and every 65 year old whether they be democratic or republican in the room paid for their medicare insurance for 45 years of their lives...
Why did YOU imply that she is sitting on her ass expecting a free ride?

she paid for her ride and so did most all seniors on medicare paid their medicare taxes, receiving absolutely NOTHING for those taxes paid for this insurance until they are 65 years old?


To imply these people are expecting something handed to them and should work for it is about the silliest thing I have ever heard, THEY DID WORK FOR IT!


care

Yup, and they will keep that coverage with the Bill proposed. The GOP is desiminating false claims that the old will be allowed to die under health reform. There is no doubt that many elderly under medicare will be very upset when they hear the assorted lies.

The lies will continue though, because the GOP has nothing NOTHING else to offer, other than to say NO.

You're right about the lies continuing, because your post was full of them.

The bill currently being debated both specifies people being moved from private health insurance to the public option whether they want it or not, and cutting $400 million from Medicare over ten years to put the money into the public option.

Also, it has already been shown in another thread (in great detail) that the Republicans have offered many other options and ideas, which leftists have simply ignored in their blind obsession with grabbing power over everyone's lives.