Question for the anti-healthcare crowd

[Centrism'sVoice]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

 

[Ringel05]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

I may be anti "Obama care" (i.e. public option), but how does that make me anti-health care (reform)?

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

I may be anti "Obama care" (i.e. public option), but how does that make me anti-health care (reform)?

Somehow I'm guessing that if I put "anti-public option" in the header, most people wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Your turn.

 

[skookerasbil]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

s0n.......your mama obviously never told you, "You get what you pay for!!"

Alot of the hopelessly duped in this country automatically assume that there is endless virtue in government. These same people trust them implicitly to have the best interests of the people.

These same people are quick to automatically demonize private enterprise......because they loath any kind of profit. Profit is part of any kind of market system and with it comes supreme quality, ie: the current health care system in America which is by far the best medical care in the world. Competition is a wonderful things s0ns..............

Then............there is government.

Social Security?? ............. A JOKE

AMTRAK???.........A JOKE ( humongous deficits )

The US Post Office............BEYOND A JOKE ( 2 billion in debt JUST THIS YEAR!!)

Medicare...........Ooooooooooooops!!! No phrase to describe.


Oh........but of course, government is a slam dunk to operate 16% of the US economy efficiently!!!



People like the author of this thread loath anybody who is successful. These same people are among the 21%er's........miserable fcukk ups in life that will go to their graves miserable and sayng and doing anything they can to fcukk over the successful. Even if it means screwing large segments of our society who will be rationed health care under a govt run system.

Assholes........let me be clear. $$ are not spent on healthy people. $$ are spent on the sick. Its always been that way. Now...........suddenly, the government is going to make sure health care gets less expensive while treating far more people?? Ummm............sorry, but only k00ks can come up with math that works that way!! Rationed care is inevitable under Universal Health Care...........100% certainty. The elderly will get royally fcukked just to make the #'s at all plausible. 100% certainty.


Is a free market system perfect?? Lets put it this way.........some people ( conservatives) realize that life frequently comes down to tradeoffs: suck vs. suckier.

In this case.............government run health care = the suckier.

Its not even debatable...........particularly if you are somebody who currently HAS health insurance ( in which case, if you support Obama's plan............your a fcukking mental case)

 

[Ringel05]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

I may be anti "Obama care" (i.e. public option), but how does that make me anti-health care (reform)?

Somehow I'm guessing that if I put "anti-public option" in the header, most people wouldn't know what I was talking about.

Your turn.

Just checking, however you might be pleasently supprised, lots of threads/posts covering the public option.
BTW I think health insurers should be coop/non-profit or not for profit entities.

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.........did want to take the opportunity to point out that, if the current trend continues in the polls ( = epic downward slide in Obama's approval rate ).....then 99% of this kind of debate is nothing more than hot air because it wont be happening as moderate and liberal Dums jump ship in droves.............

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

BTW I think health insurers should be coop/non-profit or not for profit entities.

I would gladly support a law requiring that.

What about the actual providers, though? If it's an elective procedure, I would have no problem with them charging a profit, but would it be okay to make extra bucks from somebody who just has the bad luck to get cancer?

 

[Ringel05]

Dedicated to exposing the 21%er k00ks!!

I think we found the ring leader

(The skookerasbil diaries)

 

[Maple]

Yes, they have to show a profit, as do all corporations in order to stay in business. This can be done with competition being introduced and making people aware of cost savings for both health care insurance and health care options. There-in lies the control on costs. The free market assigns the costs with competition.

With a government run plan they do not have to show a profit, so they deficit spend. You might think that this is a wonderful idea, but eventually you will have to pay in higher taxes and pay big you will for a system that will ration care and be inefficient.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Question for the anti-healthcare crowd

This is dishonest. No one's against health care reform. The people are simply against this far over-reaching, Marxist PLAN.

Instead of fixing the leaky roof, replacing the sagging steps, fixing the faulty plumbing and electrical, and changing out the bath water, THIS plan proposes to tear the whole house down and replace it with a new, trillion dollar one that still will have a leaky roof, sagging steps, bad plumbing and electrical, and throws the baby out with the bath water!

AND tries to pack millions more into it without any increase in square footage!

The plan makes no sense, and the fast, hard sell just didn't fly.

So now, following Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals, you have to try to demonize those who resist, by claiming they are "against reform, against health care."

 

[Ringel05]

BTW I think health insurers should be coop/non-profit or not for profit entities.

I would gladly support a law requiring that.

What about the actual providers, though? If it's an elective procedure, I would have no problem with them charging a profit, but would it be okay to make extra bucks from somebody who just has the bad luck to get cancer?

Anything truely associated with cancer treatment including quality of life reconstruction (does not having it hinder your ability to perform daily tasks normally) should be covered.

Extreme example: Many (!!!!!) years ago I worked at a major metopolitan hospital. One of the patients on the oncology ward had her entire cancerous jaw removed. She had to have a new jaw reconstructed to function as normally as possible not only in society but in her daily life. I would consider that a real quality of life issue.

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

Yes, they have to show a profit, as do all corporations in order to stay in business.

Not the non-profits. All they have to do is meet their payroll and purchasing expenses.

 

[veritas]

Yes, they have to show a profit, as do all corporations in order to stay in business.

Not the non-profits. All they have to do is meet their payroll and purchasing expenses.

This is true. In fact most hospitals were started as non profit entities, it is only lately that they have been gobbled by for profit entities and squeezed dry. Fire Departments operate as non profits. There doesn't have to be a public offering or a privately held profit corporation to run a hospital. This doesn't mean that doctors and nurses and cafeteria workers et al cannot be be paid reasonable salaries.

Most small businesses are run this way anyway. The owner usually takes a salary and profit is plowed back in.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

Lots of times when corporations are "under pressure to make more money" they go out and MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT to beat the competition....for which they may raise prices or just sell more of it because satisfied people will line up to buy it because it's an IMPROVEMENT...quality is normally the last thing to sacrifice because of the competition...

You won't find that happening under government management....because the government does not have to "make more money"....the govt. can just TAX you more if costs go up (and you can count on that happening)....there is no competition to worry about....and so nothing much ever gets improved....

Of those 2 scenarios... which would you REALLY prefer.... when it comes to YOUR health?

 

[veritas]

Lots of times when corporations are "under pressure to make more money" they go out and MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT to beat the competition....for which they may raise prices or just sell more of it because satisfied people will line up to buy it because it's an IMPROVEMENT...quality is normally the last thing to sacrifice because of the competition...

O'Really?

I see you are from an alternate universe. Welcome.

 

[Ringel05]

Lots of times when corporations are "under pressure to make more money" they go out and MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT to beat the competition....for which they may raise prices or just sell more of it because satisfied people will line up to buy it because it's an IMPROVEMENT...quality is normally the last thing to sacrifice because of the competition...

O'Really?

I see you are from an alternate universe. Welcome.

 

[driveby]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

According to your libtard logic, any industry that has profit making corporations should be chucked aside and government should take over ? .......

 

[Centrism'sVoice]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

According to your libtard logic, any industry that has profit making corporations should be chucked aside and government should take over ? .......

If everyone could get by nicely with or without health care, you might have a case.
"Libtard?" How old are you, kid?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

Does that question also apply to those who want healthcare but dont like HR 3200?

 

[driveby]

When you depend on profit-making corporations to provide you with care, they are under pressure to make more money every quarter. Which means they either have to raise their prices, cut the quality of their services for the same price, or both.

How is this better than a government-administered service?

According to your libtard logic, any industry that has profit making corporations should be chucked aside and government should take over ? .......

If everyone could get by nicely with or without health care, you might have a case.
"Libtard?" How old are you, kid?

Everyone can get by nicely without the government sticking their greedy paws into the healthcare industry, junior ..........