Wash Times - Obama completely overhauled health care to insure 4 million people.

[Meister]

Why would anyone get insurance if the government agreed to pay for health care?

Because, most people don't want government healthcare.....haven't you paid attention to the polls?

You didn't answer my question.

You answered a question about how many people want UHC. I asked why anyone would pay for something that they can get for free.

Longer waiting periods, less choice among Doctors, less hospitals. Have to rely on our government to set taxation (premiums). There are a host of reasons not to have government in full control of our health....more than I mentioned.

 

[edthecynic]

It needed to be tweaked, not overhauled. It never was about insuring the uninsured, it was about redistributing the wealth.

To answer in your terms, take your head out of your MessiahRuahie's ass.

Okay, Madcow....how come we are still going to have between 30 and 40 million that aren't insured. Good grief, you're a one trick pony who comes in last.

Have you improved your comprehension skills from last night?

Now all of a sudden the Right claims there are 40 million unensured after telling us for years that was a phony number, further proving the Right are always on all sides of every issue depending on what is convenient at the moment.

The Myth of the 46 Million | The American Spectator

When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

 

[Meister]

I feel that the most proven way is to have government take over the health INSURANCE system. I am open to other solutions but unless we meet aliens you won't be able to provide any that have an actual track record.

There is no doubt that you feel there isn't any other solution.....no doubt whatsoever.

Show me your "other solution" in action or admit you are full of crap. Your choice.

WTF?
What kind of retort is that?

 

[Meister]

To answer in your terms, take your head out of your MessiahRuahie's ass.

Okay, Madcow....how come we are still going to have between 30 and 40 million that aren't insured. Good grief, you're a one trick pony who comes in last.

Have you improved your comprehension skills from last night?

Now all of a sudden the Right claims there are 40 million unensured after telling us for years that was a phony number, further proving the Right are always on all sides of every issue depending on what is convenient at the moment.

The Myth of the 46 Million | The American Spectator

When all of these factors are put together, the 2003 BlueCross BlueShield study determined that 8.2 million Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

I'm just taking the CBO's numbers, Madcow.
But, given your numbers, we certainly could have had a safety net in place for that 8.2 million, without screwing the other 300+ million in the process.
And those sub standard insurance policies is a lie perpetrated by the administration. which you so willingly just gulped up from the talking points.

 

[Bombur]

There is no doubt that you feel there isn't any other solution.....no doubt whatsoever.

Show me your "other solution" in action or admit you are full of crap. Your choice.

WTF?
What kind of retort is that?

So you are complaining to me that I don't think there is another solution and when pressed on providing said solution you call me

Yeah we are done here clown shoes.

 

[Meister]

Show me your "other solution" in action or admit you are full of crap. Your choice.

WTF?
What kind of retort is that?

So you are complaining to me that I don't think there is another solution and when pressed on providing said solution you call me

Yeah we are done here clown shoes.

Not sure what you're talking about, but the only solution you have is UHC.
I gave you a viable alternative, and you ask me to show it in action...or I'm full of crap.
You seem to be wearing the size 30 shoe, and probably some Victoria Secret's panties.

 

[Bombur]

WTF?
What kind of retort is that?

So you are complaining to me that I don't think there is another solution and when pressed on providing said solution you call me

Yeah we are done here clown shoes.

Not sure what you're talking about, but the only solution you have is UHC.
I gave you a viable alternative, and you ask me to prove it would work.....or I'm full of crap.
You seem to be wearing the size 30 shoe, and probably some Victoria Secret's panties.

You mean you solution of universal health coverage through clinics.

 

[Meister]

Have a good day, son.

 

[Bombur]

Have a good day, son.

 

[Papageorgio]

Have a good day, son.

If this solution is so good, then why are Democrats running away from Obamacare instead of campaigning on the success of Obamacare? It's a question liberals have not answered.

 

[Bombur]

Have a good day, son.

If this solution is so good, then why are Democrats running away from Obamacare instead of campaigning on the success of Obamacare? It's a question liberals have not answered.

This solution is to shift costs as opposed to making a serious effort to create a more efficient system. IMO the only real proven way to address costs is a UHC system of some sort.

It is not popular because a lot of the cost is up front in the form of people having to pay more and the rollout of the system itself is messy. The benefit will likely come later and many may never see a direct benefit from the change.

In the end the US system is still horribly inefficient and more people are going to pay the price for that inefficiency even if the pain is spread out more.

 

[Papageorgio]

If this solution is so good, then why are Democrats running away from Obamacare instead of campaigning on the success of Obamacare? It's a question liberals have not answered.

This solution is to shift costs as opposed to making a serious effort to create a more efficient system. IMO the only real proven way to address costs is a UHC system of some sort.

It is not popular because a lot of the cost is up front in the form of people having to pay more and the rollout of the system itself is messy. The benefit will likely come later and many may never see a direct benefit from the change.

In the end the US system is still horribly inefficient and more people are going to pay the price for that inefficiency even if the pain is spread out more.

So it's not really a solution?

 

[Bombur]

If this solution is so good, then why are Democrats running away from Obamacare instead of campaigning on the success of Obamacare? It's a question liberals have not answered.

This solution is to shift costs as opposed to making a serious effort to create a more efficient system. IMO the only real proven way to address costs is a UHC system of some sort.

It is not popular because a lot of the cost is up front in the form of people having to pay more and the rollout of the system itself is messy. The benefit will likely come later and many may never see a direct benefit from the change.

In the end the US system is still horribly inefficient and more people are going to pay the price for that inefficiency even if the pain is spread out more.

So it's not really a solution?

It is a solution to one maybe two problems but not all problems within our health care system.

It tries to leverage our existing Medicaid model and our current private insurance model to expand coverage to the sick and the poor who don't have insurance. The biggest change is obviously the mandate which is required to manage a universal private insurance approach.

 

[dblack]

This solution is to shift costs as opposed to making a serious effort to create a more efficient system. IMO the only real proven way to address costs is a UHC system of some sort.

It is not popular because a lot of the cost is up front in the form of people having to pay more and the rollout of the system itself is messy. The benefit will likely come later and many may never see a direct benefit from the change.

In the end the US system is still horribly inefficient and more people are going to pay the price for that inefficiency even if the pain is spread out more.

So it's not really a solution?

It is a solution to one maybe two problems but not all problems within our health care system.

It tries to leverage our existing Medicaid model and our current private insurance model to expand coverage to the sick and the poor who don't have insurance. The biggest change is obviously the mandate which is required to manage a universal private insurance approach.

We need a Final Healthcare Solution to maximize efficiency.

 

[Bombur]

So it's not really a solution?

It is a solution to one maybe two problems but not all problems within our health care system.

It tries to leverage our existing Medicaid model and our current private insurance model to expand coverage to the sick and the poor who don't have insurance. The biggest change is obviously the mandate which is required to manage a universal private insurance approach.

We need a Final Healthcare Solution to maximize efficiency.

But seriously no solution should ever be considered "final" as no solution is perfect and we have to be constantly looking to improve the system.

 

[dblack]

It is a solution to one maybe two problems but not all problems within our health care system.

It tries to leverage our existing Medicaid model and our current private insurance model to expand coverage to the sick and the poor who don't have insurance. The biggest change is obviously the mandate which is required to manage a universal private insurance approach.

We need a Final Healthcare Solution to maximize efficiency.

But seriously no solution should ever be considered "final" as no solution is perfect and we have to be constantly looking to improve the system.

As long as we have one monolithic, universal system, mandated by law, all will be fine.

 

[Bombur]

We need a Final Healthcare Solution to maximize efficiency.

But seriously no solution should ever be considered "final" as no solution is perfect and we have to be constantly looking to improve the system.

As long as we have one monolithic, universal system, mandated by law, all will be fine.

Reality does demonstrate that yes universal systems are significantly more efficient at allocating resource than our system. Not all systems have to be monolithic or all encompassing though.

 

[dblack]

But seriously no solution should ever be considered "final" as no solution is perfect and we have to be constantly looking to improve the system.

As long as we have one monolithic, universal system, mandated by law, all will be fine.

Reality does demonstrate that yes universal systems are significantly more efficient at allocating resource than our system. Not all systems have to be monolithic or all encompassing though.

All hail efficiency.

 

[Bombur]

As long as we have one monolithic, universal system, mandated by law, all will be fine.

Reality does demonstrate that yes universal systems are significantly more efficient at allocating resource than our system. Not all systems have to be monolithic or all encompassing though.

All hail efficiency.

Don't forget better health and more freedom of choice.

 

[dblack]

Reality does demonstrate that yes universal systems are significantly more efficient at allocating resource than our system. Not all systems have to be monolithic or all encompassing though.

All hail efficiency.

Don't forget better health and more freedom of choice.

Indeed. Better health so we can be more effective soldiers and workers. And all the freedom we need: choose one from column A, and one from column B, then get in line. You didn't really 'get' Orwell, did you?