Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Nobody but an idiot would argue that a capitalist system will be cheaper.

you're are right of course!!! that's why the USA has the most capitalism and is the poorest country in the world!!

And we must tell China and East Germany to switch back to liberal communism when every thing was cheaper!!

Thinnk about :
East/West Germany, Cuba,Fla., North/South Korea, Israel before/after 1999, Ghana/Ivory coast, Red China before and after communism, Hong Kong/Red China, Taiwan/Red China, El Salvadore before and after Funes . The list is endless. The more capitalism the better. Liberals lack the IQ to grasp what is simple for conservatives to grasp.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Scary guys running the Democrats as well.

It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.

Liberal communists like Dragon lady imagine that their leaders will be brilliant and pure of heart so can be given all they power they need to do whatever they want. Never mind our Founders' wisdom or that 70% of Obama's energy fund went to his bundler donors who controlled companies like Solyndra! And never mind that the great liberal heroes like Hitler Stalin and Mao slowly starved or killed around 200 million!!
Is it a surprise that true believer bigoted morons like Dragoin lady spied for Stalin??

 

[Dragonlady]

It's odd, because you seem to see the same problem I do - corporate/government collusion - and yet advocate solutions that create ever more of it.

Well for starters, when it comes to health care, government funded single payer is the cheapest route to go so I'm all for anything that strips out layers of waste - which is what pre-approvals and fighting over claims adds. One law firm I worked for self-funded their employees supplementary health care. The deposited their annual insurance premium for 800 employees into a trust fund, and paid an insurance company claims department to simply pay the claims - and they saved $100,000 per year. At the time I worked for this law firm, supplemental insurance premiums for family coverage were $1200 per year. If you can save $100K per year on 800 people, imagine the savings on 300 million.

A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison. I opt for the cheapest, least intrusive choice. Private insurance is telling my doctor how to treat me. No thank you. My option puts my care in the hands of me and my doctor. I like this one better.

As for the other, you must have missed my post about how Canadians treat governments that screw them over. After the shennanigans that Bush and the Republicans pulled in Iraq, and the economy, the three Republicans left in office would have sell pencils on the steps of the Capital Building for rent money.

I'm still mulling over whether the Hail Mary pass of handing the Liberal Party of Canada over to Justin Trudeau will work for me. I like the kid, and I don't overly romanticize his father's legacy. Great guy to build a nation - really lousy on the economy. We need people who can handle the economy at the moment. I'm not seeing one on the Canadian horizon.

Fortunately for us, Stephen Harper is a total chicken-shit conservative who was around to witness the decimation Canadians will bestow on governments that piss them off, so Stevie boy keeps his head low and his neo-con thoughts to himself.

I know Harper wants to dismantle our health care system and he doesn't dare. Canadians just named it's creator as the Greatest Canadian Who Ever Lived. Ahead of even Justin Trudeau's old man and Wayne Gretsky.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well for starters, when it comes to health care, government funded single payer is the cheapest route to go .

and of course for food, clothing, and shelter too!! Health care is merely a foot in the door for our liberal communists!! Did Marx write somewhere that only health care was to be socialized?? Of course not!!

 

[dblack]

A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.

I don't recall making that point at all. To the contrary, it's my view that your 'pick your poison' choice is a false dichotomy. It's an assumption that both the federal government, and the insurance industry, would like for us to accept, but it's simply not true. Endless variety.

But even if you can't see beyond those two options, where is the logic in doing what we did in the US - and essentially combine the two?

I feel like I did when Bush was pounding the war drums at Iraq and hardly anyone questioned it. I felt like my nation was starting to go a little bit crazy.

 

[Underhill]

A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.

I don't recall making that point at all. To the contrary, it's my view that your 'pick your poison' choice is a false dichotomy. It's an assumption that both the federal government, and the insurance industry, would like for us to accept, but it's simply not true. Endless variety.

But even if you can't see beyond those two options, where is the logic in doing what we did in the US - and essentially combine the two?

I feel like I did when Bush was pounding the war drums at Iraq and hardly anyone questioned it. I felt like my nation was starting to go a little bit crazy.

I've asked now, in two threads, addressing multiple conservative posters.

What is the alternative? Because this notion that some solution exist that nobody has thought of or tried anywhere in the world seems a bit far fetched. Everything has been tried somewhere. And guess what? Virtually the entire world has come to the same conclusion.

But if you have some miracle cure that hasn't been tried before I would love to hear it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is the alternative?

capitalism is the miracle, just like when capitalism made the cost of lasik surgery come down by 90% as quality went way way up!!

or like when China switched to capitalism and instead of slowly starving to death in the millions people started buying cars in the millions

Simply really but a liberal will lack the IQ to understand

 

[Toronado3800]

What is the alternative?

capitalism is the miracle, just like when capitalism made the cost of lasik surgery come down by 90% as quality went way way up!!

or like when China switched to capitalism and instead of slowly starving to death in the millions people started buying cars in the millions

Simply really but a liberal will lack the IQ to understand

Just asking. Is the current Chinese system the one you want to emulate, since you brought it up as an example.

Oh and hey, slow down on the name calling. It makes ppl think u are 12.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What is the alternative?

capitalism is the miracle, just like when capitalism made the cost of lasik surgery come down by 90% as quality went way way up!!

or like when China switched to capitalism and instead of slowly starving to death in the millions people started buying cars in the millions

Simply really but a liberal will lack the IQ to understand

Just asking. Is the current Chinese system the one you want to emulate, since you brought it up as an example.

Oh and hey, slow down on the name calling. It makes ppl think u are 12.

why so stupidly trying to change the subject when I have a student here learning the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism?

I'm talking life and death and you're splitting hairs like an ass.

 

[Dragonlady]

Oh and hey, slow down on the name calling. It makes ppl think u are 12.

It's the influence of the Chicago School of Economics. Friedman believed in the purity of the free market. All government funded social programs are communistic and a distortion of the free market including education. Anyone who proposes or supports the idea of government programs, is a communist.

In part, this is to vilify anyone who supports or proposes social programs to ease the pain of increased unemployment and higher prices under free market reforms. It is when the reality of the pain inflicted on the poor and middle class hits the masses that the people revolt against the reforms, and it is at that moment that Pinochet, and the Chinese Oligarchs unleashed the army on their own people, killing union leaders, teachers, lawyers - anyone who could or would oppose the wondrous free market reforms they were forced to accept.

Eddie thinks that 1% of the Chinese owning cars is the miracle of capitalism. He thinks that having billionaires shows how wealthy a country is. If the poor are starving, they should get a better education and a better job.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Eddie thinks that 1% of the Chinese owning cars is the miracle of capitalism.

Don't let your liberal bigotry prevent you from reading!!

Q. What is the future of the Chinese middle class?
A. The Chinese middle class may grow to 700 to 800 million, which is 50% to 60% of China's entire population. In the past, all the predictions have proven to be too conservative.
But on the other hand, a lot of Chinese will be in the lower middle class because education will prevent them from moving up. If young people start going into vocational schools, that's for lower skilled jobs.

Q. How big is the Chinese middle class?
A. It is estimated that it's more than 300 million -- already larger than the entire population of the United States.
About 25% of the population is middle class. It's about 50% of the urban population.

GDP 2013 (PPP): GDP (PPP) 1980:
$11.3 trillion (2013), $202 billion (1980) econ grew 55 times greater from 1980 to 2013
9.2% growth
10.5% 5-year compound annual growth
$8,382 per capita


http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/mar/23/china-gdp-since-1980






Data summary

Economic indicators for China
Click heading to sort table. Download this data
Main indicators
1980
1990
2000
2011
2016
SOURCE: IMF, WORLD BANK
Real GDP growth (annual %) 7.8 3.8 8.4
Gross domestic product, current prices (US$, billions) 202.46 390.28 1198.48 6988.47 11779.98
Gross domestic product per capita, current prices (US$) 205.12 341.35 945.6 5183.86 8522.8

 

[dblack]

A country needs a health care system, and as you pointed out, it's either funded by for profit insurance or by government, pick your poison.

I don't recall making that point at all. To the contrary, it's my view that your 'pick your poison' choice is a false dichotomy. It's an assumption that both the federal government, and the insurance industry, would like for us to accept, but it's simply not true. Endless variety.

But even if you can't see beyond those two options, where is the logic in doing what we did in the US - and essentially combine the two?

I feel like I did when Bush was pounding the war drums at Iraq and hardly anyone questioned it. I felt like my nation was starting to go a little bit crazy.

I've asked now, in two threads, addressing multiple conservative posters.

What is the alternative?

You'd never be satisfied with the answer. Because there isn't ONE answer. There are as many answers as there are people with opinions.

You know, the really frustrating thing is, the whole health care reform thing could have gone down sanely. I'm opposed to making health care a government concern on principle, but the idea of making sure everyone has health care is certainly a laudable goal. We could have, for example, approached it from the ground up - more like what we did with publicly funded primary education. That would allow local families and communities to seek solutions that fit their needs, rather than follow mandates handed down from Aetna via DC.

But that would never suite the ambitions of those pushing the hardest for these kinds of corporate/government "partnerships". The major players in the health care industry all signed off on PPACA - it would have never passed otherwise - and you can bet they're getting something for their money.

For me, the travesty of PPACA isn't that it's an expensive entitlement, or even that pushes us down the road to 'socialized medicine'. The rotten core of PPACA is that it's text book corporatism.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't recall making that point at all. To the contrary, it's my view that your 'pick your poison' choice is a false dichotomy. It's an assumption that both the federal government, and the insurance industry, would like for us to accept, but it's simply not true. Endless variety.

But even if you can't see beyond those two options, where is the logic in doing what we did in the US - and essentially combine the two?

I feel like I did when Bush was pounding the war drums at Iraq and hardly anyone questioned it. I felt like my nation was starting to go a little bit crazy.

I've asked now, in two threads, addressing multiple conservative posters.

What is the alternative?

You'd never be satisfied with the answer. Because there isn't ONE answer. There are as many answers as there are people with opinions.

You know, the really frustrating thing is, the whole health care reform thing could have gone down sanely. I'm opposed to making health care a government concern on principle, but the idea of making sure everyone has health care is certainly a laudable goal. We could have, for example, approached it from the ground up - more like what we did with publicly funded primary education. That would allow local families and communities to seek solutions that fit their needs, rather than follow mandates handed down from Aetna via DC.

But that would never suite the ambitions of those pushing the hardest for these kinds of corporate/government "partnerships". The major players in the health care industry all signed off on PPACA - it would have never passed otherwise - and you can bet they're getting something for their money.

For me, the travesty of PPACA isn't that it's an expensive entitlement, or even that pushes us down the road to 'socialized medicine'. The rotten core of PPACA is that it's text book corporatism.

throughout history the liberals have always felt that as long the fascist corporatists were their liberal fascist corporatists there would not be a problem:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy=

 

[expatriate]

the guy who starts this thread and contributes most to it believes that sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers, which shows the profound depth of his lack of understanding of healthcare in America.

I am certain that single payer is not a matter of "if" and only of "when"... much like gay marriage.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

ed says: sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers,

At least equally preferred anyway if you have a free economy. Like life insurance, the older and sicker you are the more you pay so the company doesn't really care about your age. Or, like any free market really, if you're gonna need a lot of car, like a Rolls Royce for example, or a lot of insurance, you're gonna pay a lot more than someone who needs less.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am certain that single payer is not a matter of "if" and only of "when"...)

Marx predicted single payer communism 150 years ago!!! Don't hold your breath unless its between strokes on your way to Cuba. Why not move there before it too turns capitalist on you??

You like free lunch welfare communism only because you lack the IQ to understand capitalism as the OP claims.

 

[emilynghiem]

What you are talking about works for a car. It doesn't for the health care. Here is why.

Most of us do not pick the best doctor. You pick what is available. If you are lucky you find one that is taking new patients. It's not as simple as picking the best insurer. You get what your company offers. Most of us don't have 15 hospitals to choose from, we go to the local hospital.

Health care is not like a car lot where you can walk in and choose the car model, brand and type you want. Most of us get what is available to us. Most of us wouldn't know the difference even if we could. How do you determine the best surgeon? Bed side manor? Doesn't tell you a whole lot. How about the best hospital? Unless you are among the elderly, you don't spend enough time there to know which is best. People don't generally shop around for the best hospital.

The industry knows this. That is why they do not have to offer competitive rates. This is why cost keep going up even though the vast majority of the system is still privately owned and run.

Your post, indeed, most of the discussion of health care reform, is based on the premise that the standard model of group insurance is the only way to pay for health care. And that's our biggest mistake.

Okay, then what is your alternative?

Instead of compelling people by law to either buy insurance or pay 1500 into federal exchange insurance coops,
give people the option to invest DIRECTLY in more medical school and health programs with internships to work off loans or course credits by serving in public clinics and facilities.

create sustainable health education and service programs instead of paying companies that profit off insurance which isn't providing the actual services or training actual providers.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Your post, indeed, most of the discussion of health care reform, is based on the premise that the standard model of group insurance is the only way to pay for health care. And that's our biggest mistake.

Okay, then what is your alternative?

Instead of compelling people by law to either buy insurance or pay 1500 into federal exchange insurance coops,
give people the option to invest DIRECTLY in more medical school and health programs with internships to work off loans or course credits by serving in public clinics and facilities.

create sustainable health education and service programs instead of paying companies that profit off insurance which isn't providing the actual services or training actual providers.

gibberish nonsense!! you have to pay directly in cash in the real world or try to create a huge huge barter bureaucracy that would only add to the huge inefficiency that already exists. Please give that idea a rest forever.

 

[expatriate]

ed says: sick people are a health insurance company's most preferred customers,

At least equally preferred anyway if you have a free economy. Like life insurance, the older and sicker you are the more you pay so the company doesn't really care about your age. Or, like any free market really, if you're gonna need a lot of car, like a Rolls Royce for example, or a lot of insurance, you're gonna pay a lot more than someone who needs less.

again... you don't understand what risk pool economics is all about. Sick people are NOT equally preferred because they use more insurance dollars than the size of their premiums.

Healthy people who pay premiums year after year and never need any major medical care are, by far, the preferred customers for health insurance companies.

You really don't know what the **** you are talking about.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Sick people are NOT equally preferred because they use more insurance dollars than the size of their premiums.

of course you cant buy more car than you pay for
in a free market