Healthcare debate: Yurt vs. Jake starkey

[Yurt]

it is my understanding that your view on h/c is different from mine....since we tried to have a one on one debate a bit ago, but couldn't agree on topics and then i ran out time....let us do this again

i actually don't know your stance on the h/c debate, but, others have said our stance differs and that this would be a good debate topic. as such, i give you the first post.

the floor is yours jake.

 

[Oddball]

I'll take Yurt and lay the points.

 

[Yurt]

I'll take Yurt and lay the points.

he is on the board and posting...so i gave him the link via visitor message

i expect him to reply as he did so last time

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't that a debate on this will be as helpful as more of an understanding and definitions of the role of businesses, government, and consumers.

Unlike many, I am not afraid at all of government regulation of the industry. My military and VA care have been outstanding and reasonable. The care I received as a military dependent ever so long ago was good. Very few folks I know on Medicare (I know very few of Medicaid) are unhappy with the quality of the care. So, basically, I don't think we can argue that the government cannot regulate it well on behalf of the consumers.

My issue is that of the industry that got obscenely rich will denying care to those who were willing to pay the premiums. My party kept saying it had plans that would work for health care and maintain the private industry itself, but from 1994 to 2006, nothing got done of any worth.

Now we have the new government regulations in place that will kick in over the next few years, and I see almost no way for the 'conservative' party to derail its major provisions. I think Obama has a good chance for re-election, while the House will gain a great Republican majority and the Senate will go GOP but with more than 40 Dem senators in 2012.

I think all of that above is reasonable. OK, where do we go from here is the question I have.

(As an aside and the only time I will mention it: Oddball twice and I once challenged each other to debate. All three times he disappeared. Period. Nothing more to say.)

 

[Trajan]

I'll take Yurt and lay the points.

no points, they'll use a dime line for this. I make it 230-180.

 

[Yurt]

QUOTE=JakeStarkey;3142290]I don't that a debate on this will be as helpful as more of an understanding and definitions of the role of businesses, government, and consumers.

i'm sure you meant don't = doubt, simple typo....that said

why would this debate not be helpful? are we not citizens of this great country that get to vote? is our country not better off having more informed citizens?

Unlike many, I am not afraid at all of government regulation of the industry. My military and VA care have been outstanding and reasonable. The care I received as a military dependent ever so long ago was good. Very few folks I know on Medicare (I know very few of Medicaid) are unhappy with the quality of the care. So, basically, I don't think we can argue that the government cannot regulate it well on behalf of the consumers.

jake....you're not understanding the term - consumer. the consumer did not join the federal organization, just as the consumer did not join the UC system in california. unless and until, they actually joined said system. once you or i join said system, we are no longer a "consumer", we are an employee.

My issue is that of the industry that got obscenely rich will denying care to those who were willing to pay the premiums. My party kept saying it had plans that would work for health care and maintain the private industry itself, but from 1994 to 2006, nothing got done of any worth.

i'm not sure what you mean by "my party"...what party is that jake?

you have a good point about an industry that got rich while deny benefits to those who needed it. why is it you refuse to state the the government does the same thing. both federal and state. someone has to pay jake. who is that someone?

Now we have the new government regulations in place that will kick in over the next few years, and I see almost no way for the 'conservative' party to derail its major provisions. I think Obama has a good chance for re-election, while the House will gain a great Republican majority and the Senate will go GOP but with more than 40 Dem senators in 2012.

you're probably right, obama stands a good chance at relection because the cons have no viable counter part.

I think all of that above is reasonable. OK, where do we go from here is the question I have.

(As an aside and the only time I will mention it: Oddball twice and I once challenged each other to debate. All three times he disappeared. Period. Nothing more to say.)

nothing to do with you and i.....

 

[Dr.House]

This "debate" failed miserably....

Jake ran away....

 

[JakeStarkey]

QUOTE=JakeStarkey;3142290]I don't that a debate on this will be as helpful as more of an understanding and definitions of the role of businesses, government, and consumers.

i'm sure you meant don't = doubt, simple typo....that said

why would this debate not be helpful? are we not citizens of this great country that get to vote? is our country not better off having more informed citizens?

Unlike many, I am not afraid at all of government regulation of the industry. My military and VA care have been outstanding and reasonable. The care I received as a military dependent ever so long ago was good. Very few folks I know on Medicare (I know very few of Medicaid) are unhappy with the quality of the care. So, basically, I don't think we can argue that the government cannot regulate it well on behalf of the consumers.

jake....you're not understanding the term - consumer. the consumer did not join the federal organization, just as the consumer did not join the UC system in california. unless and until, they actually joined said system. once you or i join said system, we are no longer a "consumer", we are an employee.



i'm not sure what you mean by "my party"...what party is that jake?

you have a good point about an industry that got rich while deny benefits to those who needed it. why is it you refuse to state the the government does the same thing. both federal and state. someone has to pay jake. who is that someone?

Now we have the new government regulations in place that will kick in over the next few years, and I see almost no way for the 'conservative' party to derail its major provisions. I think Obama has a good chance for re-election, while the House will gain a great Republican majority and the Senate will go GOP but with more than 40 Dem senators in 2012.

you're probably right, obama stands a good chance at relection because the cons have no viable counter part.

I think all of that above is reasonable. OK, where do we go from here is the question I have.

(As an aside and the only time I will mention it: Oddball twice and I once challenged each other to debate. All three times he disappeared. Period. Nothing more to say.)

nothing to do with you and i.....

I don't [doubt] that a debate on this will be as helpful as more of an understanding and definitions of the role of businesses, government, and consumers. Thanks for the correction, Yurt. Yes, that is what I meant.

Yes, I agree with you that an informed democracy is necessary for civic virtue.

.....

you're not understanding the term - consumer. the consumer did not join the federal organization, just as the consumer did not join the UC system in california. unless and until, they actually joined said system. once you or i join said system, we are no longer a "consumer", we are an employee. .....

The consumer and consumer markets clearly do not act in a vacuum. The Progressive Age of social democracy in American from 1902 has not ended. Any business, such as health care, that has a public interest may be regulated in the interests of both provider and consumer. The question of the two major parties is not whether but how.

Note that 'your party' means those who associate in political belief with you. That party may be informal or organized.

Question 1: is health insurance a public interest?

Question 2: if the health insurance industry has failed to contain costs and open full access to people, should the government regulate it to do so?