Does Anyone Think This Is A Good Idea? Health Care Debate

[WorldAHope]

it's not a matter of being okay or not okay,, they are going to do it no matter if we are okay with it.. they will pay a political price for it though and just remember Annie, unless it is a constitutional amendment things can be re-thought and rewritten other socialist countries aren't doing well with socialized medicine and they don't have the population we do,, if they can't do it and stay solvent it's for sure the screw ups in Washington cannot do it.. We have 3 years and 265 more days of hell. then we will see what happens.

Name or describe the 'socialized medicine" nations that have a worse healthcare system than the USA.
Provide statistics, not just opinion statements.

As a business owner, with more than 210 employees, I will tell you point blank that virtually every Corporation will benefit from reducing their expenses and burden of employee healthcare.
It will be good for capitalism, overall, especially in this global competition economy. .
A nationalized/socialized/single insurer cover healthcare those many millions who are currently uncovered, and those millions more who are inadequately covered. It will do so at a lower cost per person than our current, unbalanced, skewed, extremely inefficient methods.

The ONLY capitalist beneficiaries of the current US healthcare 'system' are those who are reaping profits: insurers and pharamceuticals and other supliers who over charge and cherrypick clients and under service those who they do serve.

And those are the powers that are funding and pushing the hard resistance to a nationalized/socialized/single payer system.

It will ruin their gig, but will help the nation's citizens and employers.
It will hurt only only that small segment of capitalists, those who have been getting rich off of a lousy healthcare system,
but it will aid, perhaps save from bankrupcy, every other small business and large business, every employer in this country who now struggles and suffers under the weight of the current expensive yet crappy system.

I think there needs to be a debate about it, not a short stuff it through the legislature, but a real debate. To air ideas and to air allegiances.
Let the opposition reveal who owns them.
The Dems are impatient, and are doing the Republicans a favor by sparing them the political embarassment of a lengthy open debate.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

it's not a matter of being okay or not okay,, they are going to do it no matter if we are okay with it.. they will pay a political price for it though and just remember Annie, unless it is a constitutional amendment things can be re-thought and rewritten other socialist countries aren't doing well with socialized medicine and they don't have the population we do,, if they can't do it and stay solvent it's for sure the screw ups in Washington cannot do it.. We have 3 years and 265 more days of hell. then we will see what happens.

Name or describe the 'socialized medicine" nations that have a worse healthcare system than the USA.
Provide statistics, not just opinion statements.

As if statistics are more reiable than opinion... LOL... Funny stuff.

Canada, Germany, England, Australia, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden...

The simple fact is that what the sum of individuals cannot sustain independently, neither can the Collective sustain such.



What the left is PROMISING is SOLID GOLD... FIRST CLASS, Carte BLANCHE Medical treatment for the least amongst us... what the Left can DELIVER however is the LEAST TREATMENT FOR THE WHOLE OF US.

In the US RIGHT NOW... ANY HUMAN BEING PRESENT CAN WALK INTO ANY EMERGENCY ROOM AND GET WORLD CLASS MEDICAL CARE... From minor injuries to BRAIN TUMORS... Where the INDIGENT are given IMMEDIATE treatment which manages their disease and their pain. X-ray, MRI, CAT scans and other more sophisticated diagnostic methods are IMMEDIATELY available..., an indigent enters a US Emergency room and needs HEART SURGERY... they're in surgery in a matter of hours.

In the above noted nations, the wait for diagnostic treatment is now measured in months; the course of treatment, from what prescription medications are being applied to the level of care which will be considered is being lowered across the board... and the reason siimple... THEY CAN'T PAY FOR IT! Their problem is that they've now no where left to go... They HAVE Nationalized their healthcare and there's NO LEFT TO BLAME... the facts are on the table and they've come to find what insurabce actuaries knew 100 years ago...

YOU CAN'T INSURE AGAINST CERTAIN LOSS... It' can't be done, BECAUSE ITS A CERTAINTY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SUSTAIN A LOSS!

As a business owner, with more than 210 employees, I will tell you point blank that virtually every Corporation will benefit from reducing their expenses and burden of employee healthcare.

ROFl... Yes, that's true... EVERYONE is helped when the liabilities they face are decreased... of course healthcare liabilities are no different than tax and regulatory liability... I can't help but to notice that this member is advocating to lower healthcare cost, DECLARING AS A POINT BLANK "VIRTUAL" FACT.. that lowering healthcare liability is ESSENTIAL... 'a benefit' to EVERYONE... but when it comes to liabilities of taxation and regulation, we find no such declaration... Ain't that fascinatin'?

Of course, this falls under "HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TO..." Would anyone care to look back over the fables of their youth and remind us of the moral principle where a desire to "HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO" is shown to be unsustainable?

Here's the thing: IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO INSURE AGAINST CERTAIN LOSS, A CORPORATION OF 210.2145672345 employees would EASILY be able to do so... IF it were POSSIBLE to provide TOP FLIGHT< WORLD CLASS> UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE to EVERYONE... where EVERYONE gets a private room and their own SUPER-HOTTY Nurse... Walmart would be doing it; Microsoft would be doing it...

Now what species of reasoning is it which says that DESPITE MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONGLOMERATES, NOT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE FREE HEALTHCARE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES... that the US Government can do so? Thus freeing up the Small business operator from having to support their 210.2145672345 employees, which the liability for supporting their insurance was formerly crushing them...

The only thing which separates the means of the US government from MS or Wallmart is the number of digits that their means provides to the left of the DECIMAL... Which while that may be a LOT of digits, the number of people for which that means will be liable for will be expoenentially larger, thus RINSING FROM IT, ANY POTENTIAL RELEVANCE...

Meaning that the problem is one of PRINCIPLE, NOT MEANS.

And the principle is: YOU CAN NOT INSURE AGAINST CERTAIN LOSS and there is no more CERTAIN A POTENTIAL FOR LOSS THAN THE HEALTH OF THE AGING HUMAN BEING.

Oh... can't ya just hear the breaking hearts now? HOW CRUEL! You DON"T CARE THAT PEOPLE ARE DYING! As if there is a healthcare system that is preventing people from dying... or even one on EARTH which is delaying the deaths and increasing the quality of life for more people than that of the US Free market healthcare system.

What a nationalized/socialized/single insurer cover healthcare system will do is destroy the means of the US to provide quality anywhere near where it is RIGHT NOW...

What you will find is the level of care which is common to the Dept of Motor Vehicles or any of a litanny of 'government help services...' It is healthcare by the lowest common denominator...

Friends, the left gave us the HMO... on the same basis which this crap is being sold upon... ANY FANS OF THE HMO IN HERE? Anyone realizing 'better- cheaper- higher quality of life' healthcare from the HMO?

 

[American Horse]

I confess I read both those interpetations and am got lost in the parlimentary machinations.

I take it the Dems are now doing what the Rs did when they ruled the roost?

They are making it impossible for the opposition to have meaningful input (or even debate of same?) into the bills before them, right?

Sound vaguely familiar to complaints we've heard in the past, doesn't it?

That seems to have been Care's only point: The Republicans did it first, so now why shouldn't the Democrats? But compare the instances: The Republicans "rammed through tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority". These were all supposed to be items reflective of the budgetary process. Now we have a huge policy issue like health care falling under the rubric of the reconciliation procedure. I dare say none of the items "rammed through" by the Republicans had any where near the lack of germaness to the budget this health care revamp has; it is a huge philosophical issue which will divide the country right down the middle when people understand what has happened. There is a good reason this is being called "going nuclear"