‘Government-Run’ Nonsense and other dubious right wing lies shot down

[daveman]

daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.

Where are you going to get the doctors you need, Bass? The left claims that millions of Americans don't have access to health care now. What happens to the already-overburdened system when they're suddenly tossed into it? Add to that a cap on reimbursement for treatment.

Who would want to go into medicine facing less pay and longer hours?

There are no personal attacks in this post. Please answer my questions.

 

[The T]

daveman the dickhead fails to realize that the Tricare he's receiving is the closest thing to so-called "socialized medicine" because Tricare is paid for by the government and administered in government/military hospitals but in keeping in line with parroting right wing shit without researching the facts and realizing his own contradiction he says bullshit like "socialized medicine."

Once again for the learning-impaired leftists (sorry for the redundancy) among us:

Military benefits are earned. Socialized benefits are not.

And no, voting Democrat is not earning them.

Voting Democrat is being bought.

 

[daveman]

Dave,

With all due respect, this does not matter to me. The invitation is for them to show me that health care will cost less under their system and if they do...I'll shut up.

I don't care if it costs 50% less and is 2 times better. I simply don't want the federal government in my health insurance program. It is not within their scope....period.

I could care less if they were perfect in executing this system (which they are not).

Indeed. This is symptomatic of leftism: Ready, fire, aim! They have no clue what the real-world impact will be, and they don't much care -- because they don't spend much time in the real world.

The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens. But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. It specifically describes what the Federal government may do. If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government. Leftists consistently fail to understand that.

 

[daveman]

daveman the dickhead fails to realize that the Tricare he's receiving is the closest thing to so-called "socialized medicine" because Tricare is paid for by the government and administered in government/military hospitals but in keeping in line with parroting right wing shit without researching the facts and realizing his own contradiction he says bullshit like "socialized medicine."

Once again for the learning-impaired leftists (sorry for the redundancy) among us:

Military benefits are earned. Socialized benefits are not.

And no, voting Democrat is not earning them.

Voting Democrat is being bought.

For an astoundingly low price, it seems.

 

[The T]

Once again for the learning-impaired leftists (sorry for the redundancy) among us:

Military benefits are earned. Socialized benefits are not.

And no, voting Democrat is not earning them.

Voting Democrat is being bought.

For an astoundingly low price, it seems.

What price is Liberty?

 

[Bass v 2.0]

Indeed. This is symptomatic of leftism: Ready, fire, aim! They have no clue what the real-world impact will be, and they don't much care -- because they don't spend much time in the real world.

The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens. But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

You lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution. It specifically describes what the Federal government may do. If it doesn't grant the Feds a power, that power is then given to the States or the people.

The Constitution isn't a blank check for the government. Leftists consistently fail to understand that.

One again jackass, explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution. Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

 

[OODA_Loop]

explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution

cannot penalize for commercial inactivity

 

[Bass v 2.0]

daveman has no real arguments against the single payer system so he makes untruthful claims that its unconstitutional and demeans government, and liberals as not knowing anything despite the fact that it was the Republitards that originally wanted the single payer system of universal healthcare. Its better to make personal attacks instead acknowledging that the single payer system drives down costs.

Where are you going to get the doctors you need, Bass? The left claims that millions of Americans don't have access to health care now. What happens to the already-overburdened system when they're suddenly tossed into it? Add to that a cap on reimbursement for treatment.

Who would want to go into medicine facing less pay and longer hours?

There are no personal attacks in this post. Please answer my questions.

There is no proof that universal healthcare makes people less likely to want to go into the medical field, these doctors charge sky high prices well above market value. I already explained that, doctors can charge whatever prices they want now, that's why the cost of health care in the US is more than any other country, even higher than in country that have universal healthcare. Enough with your hypothetical strawman argument.

The cap on reimbursement is to keep health insurance companies from passing on their losses and operating costs onto the consumers.

 

[Listening]

One again jackass, explain how the law conflicts with the Constitution. Don't give me trolling right wing talking points and ad-hominems against leftists, that's childish. The fact remains that Obama's health care law is closely modeled after and even copied from a plan the GOPtards wanted, are the GOPtards leftists too?

Let's see....the 10th amendment. Pure and simple.

And has been discussed already....the GOP never wanted healthcare. It was thrown up as an alternative to a monster program they were fighting at a time when they were weak.

Please explain to me how the GOP, if they had wanted healthcare, didn't put something in place during GWB's time in office when he had the house and senate. Do you really think the dems would have fought him.

If you stopped and thought about what you were saying (instead of quoting BS left wing horsecrap), you might see just how stupid it sounds.

 

[Listening]

Well numbskull,even under a single payer system you do have a choice about your health care, the federal government isn't involved in that, its about the costs and at this rate without a single payer system costs are going to skyrocket, you rightwing monkeys can't have it both ways, you want to be fiscally smart then do it.

O.K. piss-for-brains, does my "choice" include not participating ?

 

[Listening]

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

It's this sort of comment that proves education has failed us. The Constitution is a specification of the powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of prohibitions on government.

Seriously, read the Federalist Papers. Read some basic American history.

It is amazing.

Even our President is a so-called Constitutioinal Scholar.

What that means is that he is schooled in the art of getting around it.

 

[JoeB131]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

Here's the thing, though.

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

Government has already taken on the hard-cases. the elderly, the poor, the disabled- who need constant and expensive care.

So private insurance is left just caring for the people who are mostly healthy.

ObamaCare attempts to preserve the status quo by forcing people to pay into the system who could and weren't and adding additional government subsidies for those who can't, but it speeds up the demise of the system by essentially eliminating the ability of insurance companies to refuse payment for pre-existing conditions.

Essentially, allowing you to buy car insurance AFTER you've had the accident.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[ Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

tort reform and reduce .gov red tape

there are better margins at cheaper cost with less of both

 

[Listening]

Private Health insurance in the long run is unsustainable. Eventually, medical care becomes so expensive, no one can afford the insurance.

I don't quite get this statement.

Insurance is spread out risk. It assumes that it collects enough to cover the payouts.

What is the basis for this comment ?

 

[Liability]

Dave,

With all due respect, this does not matter to me. The invitation is for them to show me that health care will cost less under their system and if they do...I'll shut up.

I don't care if it costs 50% less and is 2 times better. I simply don't want the federal government in my health insurance program. It is not within their scope....period.

I could care less if they were perfect in executing this system (which they are not).

Indeed. This is symptomatic of leftism: Ready, fire, aim! They have no clue what the real-world impact will be, and they don't much care -- because they don't spend much time in the real world.

The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens. But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

Basshole, stop being so massively dishonest in the way you engage in "debate," moron.

The concern about the questionable Constitutionality is NOT whether Universal Health Care is ITSELF a violation of the Constitution, stupid.

The concern is the way it is being sought by our beloved central government. COMPELLING citizens to buy a particular "product" is antithetical to the precept of a government of LIMITED power and LIMITED authority.

You are a hugely unpersuasive trollish hack piece of crap.

Stop with your idiot version of the leftwing talking pointlesses, you stupid hack.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dave,

With all due respect, this does not matter to me. The invitation is for them to show me that health care will cost less under their system and if they do...I'll shut up.

I don't care if it costs 50% less and is 2 times better. I simply don't want the federal government in my health insurance program. It is not within their scope....period.

I could care less if they were perfect in executing this system (which they are not).

Indeed. This is symptomatic of leftism: Ready, fire, aim! They have no clue what the real-world impact will be, and they don't much care -- because they don't spend much time in the real world.

The Constitution does not grant the Federal government the authority to provide healthcare for all citizens. But then, leftists don't much care for the Constitution, either.

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

Name the part of the Constitution that says government is responsble for our healthcare.

 

[conner700]

Obamacare is the first step to government-run healthcare.

Unless it's repealed by clear-headed people, it will create more problems than it solves. Those who want socialized medicine will claim the only thing that can save us is government-run healthcare.

This has been the plan all along. It's been quite obvious.

I agree with Health Care for all---just not mandated. If the gov forces everyone to buy Health Care where will it end. A huge slippery slope. Today Health care, tomorrow Firestone Tires.

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people. They are the court that said Corporations are People? Look how that has gone over in the country. People are outraged.

Without the mandated portion of the bill---the entire bill fall apart. There is other way to pay for it unless healthy people pay for sick people's care. But when people get sick they should get care and not be allowed to die just cause they can't afford it.

As a country we should take care of the sick. It is the morally right thing to do. On the other hand, we shouldn't be forced to purchase a product we don't need or want.

 

[OODA_Loop]

However, I don't think the Sct. are clear headed people. They are the court that said Corporations are People?

and to what extent did SCOTUS affirm the individual right under incorporation ?

 

[konradv]

Name the part of the Constitution and section where universal healthcare is forbidden, otherwise stop repeating rightwing talking points.

It's this sort of comment that proves education has failed us. The Constitution is a specification of the powers granted to the government by the people, not a list of prohibitions on government.

Seriously, read the Federalist Papers. Read some basic American history.

Then you must be reading them incorrectly. That's basically a Leninist line, anything not specifically permitted is prohibited. Democracies usually favor, anything not specifically prohibited is permitted. The Constitution was not meant to be set in stone, but to be flexible with the times.

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)


Critiques Of Libertarianism: Quotations

 

[Greenbeard]

To be fair the UK and Canadian plans aren't equivalent. Britain's is government-run and not popular. Canada's is a single-payer system and very popular.

Okay, I'm only on my second cup of coffee, but what's the diff between govt-run and single-payer?
Wouldn't the gov't be the single payer?

It depends on who's staffing the doctors' offices and hospitals. If they're private with their fees paid by the government, that's single-payer. If the government is doing the staffing, then it's a government-run system. The main difference between us and Canada is that here we have to deal with AND PAY FOR paperwork from hundreds of different entities, instead of just one.

Therein lies the confusion (incoherence, really) of the "government-run" term. Since this thread seems to have focused almost exclusively on single-payer concepts, presumably people are not conceptualizing "government-run" to mean the government actually running health care. That is, a VHA or NHS type situation where a government doctor or government contractor is the one offering care.

Single-payer, obviously, primarily focuses on the payment side, not the running of the health care sector, though payment policy obviously has huge incentives for provider behavior. A single basic benefits plan is tax-funded and available to all, though the actual administration of that insurance function may well be contracted to private insurers and private supplemental coverage may well be available.

Then you have our system (outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VHA), the one cemented by the ACA, which is explicitly a private multi-payer system with private health facilities and professionals. That, too, apparently is "government-run."

It's a meaningless term at this point.

No hypocrisy. I earned my benefits. What do recipients of Demo vote-buying program benefits do to earn them?

Wait, your objection isn't that the government can't effectively offer health insurance, and that when they do it's a terrible Mad Max nightmare scenario--it's that when government does offer insurance, it's so good that most people aren't deserving of it?