ObamaCare…coming soon

[sdgrrl]

Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl]Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.[/quote]

Sdgrrl: I don’t think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that’s what I argue consistently against.

I don’t argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we’re being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist “bias” kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don’t engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like “un-American”, “angry mobs” carrying “swastikas” (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn’t make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you’re a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you’re a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl]Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.[/quote]

Sdgrrl: I don’t think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that’s what I argue consistently against.

I don’t argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we’re being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist “bias” kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don’t engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like “un-American”, “angry mobs” carrying “swastikas” (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn’t make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you’re a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you’re a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl]Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.[/quote]

Sdgrrl: I don’t think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that’s what I argue consistently against.

I don’t argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we’re being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist “bias” kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don’t engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like “un-American”, “angry mobs” carrying “swastikas” (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn’t make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you’re a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you’re a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl]Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.[/quote]

Sdgrrl: I don’t think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that’s what I argue consistently against.

I don’t argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we’re being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist “bias” kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don’t engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like “un-American”, “angry mobs” carrying “swastikas” (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn’t make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you’re a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you’re a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=sdgrrl]Conservatives are not bad. Many of the people who have hijacked it are bad to me based on:

Mixing religion with policy.
Using prejudices against homosexuality as a political platform.
Having an uberhawkish foreign policy.
Turning a blind eye to their own spending

These are facts and when they can get their ideals realigned I would be very happy to rethink my opinions of them.

Liberals are bad on:
Many want an open border with Mexico.
Tax the hell out of Corporations.
Impose to many restrictions and laws.
Are quite aware of their own spending.[/quote]

Sdgrrl: I don’t think liberals are bad at all. I do, however, think leftists are bad and that’s what I argue consistently against.

I don’t argue that healthcare in this country has issues and that we need to make changes. This has been on the agenda for decades and both parties have been unsuccessful in advancing it.

Where Obama and his cadre of loyal Dems are running into trouble is their insistence, over the protests of citizens and the opposition (Dem and Repub) alike, that their plan is the right one and needs to be passed. I think a large amount of people, conservative AND liberal, disagree, but we’re being marginalized by folks like Hoyer and Pelosi and not allowed to participate in either the dialogue or the process.

This is where my anti-leftist “bias” kicks in, for this is as leftist as it comes. Don’t engage in free and fair discussions, rather, attack and attempt to discredit your opposition (use of knee-jerk and jingoistic terms like “un-American”, “angry mobs” carrying “swastikas” (Pelosi). And, yes, I know the counter-argument regarding Republicans using the same tactics, but it doesn’t make it right, either.

There is a strong wave of popular anger sweeping this country and it is on the rise. Obamacare is DOA until such time as the President himself steps up and steps in and takes control of this. Rather than multiple bills floating around on the Hill, he needs to draft a bill, present it to the American people and lay out each and every component of it, with explanations for each.

This idea of having a 1,000 page behemoth that few, if any, legislators have fully read or even understand being rammed through Congress at breakneck speed is alarming, and rightfully so. Not rightfully so if you’re a conservative or a liberal, but rightfully so if you’re a thinking rational person. Healthcare represents 1/6th of our entire economy and deserves the same amount of thoughtful, reasoned dialogue and then action.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

[/quote]

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don’t want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.
[/quote]

That’s nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
[/quote]

Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.
[/quote]

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=Costs of Medicare vs. Private|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=54]

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?[/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve been looking at what’s been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that’s reality.

Still it’s nice that you’re actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

[/quote]

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don’t want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.
[/quote]

That’s nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
[/quote]

Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.
[/quote]

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=Costs of Medicare vs. Private|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=54]

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?[/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve been looking at what’s been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that’s reality.

Still it’s nice that you’re actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

[/quote]

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don’t want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.
[/quote]

That’s nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
[/quote]

Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.
[/quote]

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=Costs of Medicare vs. Private|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=54]

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?[/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve been looking at what’s been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that’s reality.

Still it’s nice that you’re actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

[/quote]

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don’t want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.
[/quote]

That’s nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
[/quote]

Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.
[/quote]

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=Costs of Medicare vs. Private|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=54]

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?[/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve been looking at what’s been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that’s reality.

Still it’s nice that you’re actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

[surveyor]

[quote=sdgrrl]For every fact in that segment a fact can be found against it. Just one part of it regarded their “fact” that with socialized care medical technology would come to a stand still. France has socialized medicine, the Swiss have socialized medicine and they have discovered nothing since that all went in to effect?

Just because there s socialized medicine doesn’t mean we won’t have privately funded research.

[/quote]

True, I doubt that innovation will stop completely, but I do think that in socialized medicine, there will be less innovation than in a profit driven model. The drug companies are a good example of this. You asked why others pay less for drugs than the U.S.? The main reason why is because we are paying for it. The other countries put a price cap on the drug prices and so the drug companies pass the cost down to us. Hardly sounds fair. Install price controls in the U.S. and you will find a chilling effect on drug companies. When it costs a billion dollars to get a drug to market, and the countries don’t want to pay for it, what company will go into debt for that? They will just go out of business or will just find another avenue of potential profit.

So interesting question, while France and other socialized healthcare countries are doing some medical innovation, what country is the leader in medical innovation in the entire world?

The United States of America. Why? Because the pursuit of profit forces companies to innovate and become efficient.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also, Canada does not have socialized dental care that is a fact.
[/quote]

That’s nice to know! The dental stories in the Stossel piece referred to the British healthcare system.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Also a fact millions of Canadians and British love their system http://www.healthcare-now.org/new-poll-shows-canadians-overwhelmingly-support-public-health-care/
[/quote]

Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Sadly, Stossel never talked about lowering cost I only heard him say that profit based medicine is a good thing.
[/quote]

When has the government ever lowered costs? I posted this up earlier, but it seems to require another mention here. Here is proof poitive that profit based medicine is better than a government system.

[img_assist|nid=11577|title=Medicare Chart|desc=Costs of Medicare vs. Private|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=54]

Stossel has posted many reports before on how businesses and competition has lowered costs so I’m not surprised he didn’t mention it. The report itself was not an end all be all about all the healthcare issues, but instead was focused on rationing and innovation.

[quote=sdgrrl]
Another fact. The US will not be have socialized medicine. Democrats just want a public option. Opponents say that employers will drop their workers causing an evenual socialized society. You think that if this happens at alarming speed that perhaps Insurance companies might drop their premiums a bit?[/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve been looking at what’s been going on in Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.

There are just so many examples of government run systems and how they perform fiscally. Medicare and the VA system are good examples of what to expect in a government system. They are not run particularly well. While there are certainly some successes, they are by any account bankrupt and ration care.

If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option.

And that’s reality.

Still it’s nice that you’re actually arguing the facts instead of calling people names.

[sdgrrl]

“Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things”.

I’ve said this before in another post. I understand the difficulty in the situation because all the other countries in Europe and Canada do not have a third world country right below it with thousands of people daily willing to die to leave it.

I do know that the VA has negotiated prescription prices and that they are cheaper under that than under Medicare.

http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp

You also don’t think that part of the reason Medicare cost more than private is the fact that the typical Medicare patient is elderly, with more hospital stays and more disabilities? You really thinks its fair to compare the typical Medicare participator with a typical working person who has private insurance?

Yes, there are VA horror stories, but I ask you to go to the home in Chula Vista and come back and report to me how terrible it is.

Having experienced the VA system I can personally say it was amazing and the care my family received was better than what I’ve experienced with my own private insurer.

“Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.”

Most employers have dumped their workers insurance? I looked over and over and there is no factual evidence that this is happening. About 3% of employers dropped insurance and took the $249 penalty for each unisured employee. In fact 150,000 more people have become insured by their employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/10/mass_health_overhaul_offers_lessons_for_us_program

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/w576?HITS=10&hits=10&author1=long&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT&fulltext=employers&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=

Mass has more and more people under their care partly because of the recession and the loss of jobs and dwindling incomes.

I will not argue that Mass has not had a tough time and it is perfect, but your incorrect fear-mongering that thousands were dropped and employers are fleeing is inaccurate until you can provide me scholastic proof otherwise.

You also should clarify who was removed and it was immigrants living in Mass less than five years. It was not life long residents kicked out of the system. Also, those immigrants are now covered under the Commonwealth Care program. The only thing they will not cover them for is dental and hospice care. Sorry you are simply wrong it was reinstated August 10.

“If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option”.

Have you studied the Swiss system, because they have magically been able to have Universal Care and Private Insurance. Sorry you are wrong and its working now. Private insurance companies are still making money even though they are regulated like the dickens.

I don’t think I will be done calling people names either.

[sdgrrl]

“Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things”.

I’ve said this before in another post. I understand the difficulty in the situation because all the other countries in Europe and Canada do not have a third world country right below it with thousands of people daily willing to die to leave it.

I do know that the VA has negotiated prescription prices and that they are cheaper under that than under Medicare.

http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp

You also don’t think that part of the reason Medicare cost more than private is the fact that the typical Medicare patient is elderly, with more hospital stays and more disabilities? You really thinks its fair to compare the typical Medicare participator with a typical working person who has private insurance?

Yes, there are VA horror stories, but I ask you to go to the home in Chula Vista and come back and report to me how terrible it is.

Having experienced the VA system I can personally say it was amazing and the care my family received was better than what I’ve experienced with my own private insurer.

“Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.”

Most employers have dumped their workers insurance? I looked over and over and there is no factual evidence that this is happening. About 3% of employers dropped insurance and took the $249 penalty for each unisured employee. In fact 150,000 more people have become insured by their employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/10/mass_health_overhaul_offers_lessons_for_us_program

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/w576?HITS=10&hits=10&author1=long&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT&fulltext=employers&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=

Mass has more and more people under their care partly because of the recession and the loss of jobs and dwindling incomes.

I will not argue that Mass has not had a tough time and it is perfect, but your incorrect fear-mongering that thousands were dropped and employers are fleeing is inaccurate until you can provide me scholastic proof otherwise.

You also should clarify who was removed and it was immigrants living in Mass less than five years. It was not life long residents kicked out of the system. Also, those immigrants are now covered under the Commonwealth Care program. The only thing they will not cover them for is dental and hospice care. Sorry you are simply wrong it was reinstated August 10.

“If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option”.

Have you studied the Swiss system, because they have magically been able to have Universal Care and Private Insurance. Sorry you are wrong and its working now. Private insurance companies are still making money even though they are regulated like the dickens.

I don’t think I will be done calling people names either.

[sdgrrl]

“Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things”.

I’ve said this before in another post. I understand the difficulty in the situation because all the other countries in Europe and Canada do not have a third world country right below it with thousands of people daily willing to die to leave it.

I do know that the VA has negotiated prescription prices and that they are cheaper under that than under Medicare.

http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp

You also don’t think that part of the reason Medicare cost more than private is the fact that the typical Medicare patient is elderly, with more hospital stays and more disabilities? You really thinks its fair to compare the typical Medicare participator with a typical working person who has private insurance?

Yes, there are VA horror stories, but I ask you to go to the home in Chula Vista and come back and report to me how terrible it is.

Having experienced the VA system I can personally say it was amazing and the care my family received was better than what I’ve experienced with my own private insurer.

“Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.”

Most employers have dumped their workers insurance? I looked over and over and there is no factual evidence that this is happening. About 3% of employers dropped insurance and took the $249 penalty for each unisured employee. In fact 150,000 more people have become insured by their employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/10/mass_health_overhaul_offers_lessons_for_us_program

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/w576?HITS=10&hits=10&author1=long&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT&fulltext=employers&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=

Mass has more and more people under their care partly because of the recession and the loss of jobs and dwindling incomes.

I will not argue that Mass has not had a tough time and it is perfect, but your incorrect fear-mongering that thousands were dropped and employers are fleeing is inaccurate until you can provide me scholastic proof otherwise.

You also should clarify who was removed and it was immigrants living in Mass less than five years. It was not life long residents kicked out of the system. Also, those immigrants are now covered under the Commonwealth Care program. The only thing they will not cover them for is dental and hospice care. Sorry you are simply wrong it was reinstated August 10.

“If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option”.

Have you studied the Swiss system, because they have magically been able to have Universal Care and Private Insurance. Sorry you are wrong and its working now. Private insurance companies are still making money even though they are regulated like the dickens.

I don’t think I will be done calling people names either.

[sdgrrl]

“Well of course they do! They certainly don’t have to deal with the size of our population, illegal immigration. Why would anyone say free money is bad? When they can basically write a blank check, who’s going to say it’s a bad system? It’s only when the system starts going through stresses (which is becoming apparent now), that people start questioning things”.

I’ve said this before in another post. I understand the difficulty in the situation because all the other countries in Europe and Canada do not have a third world country right below it with thousands of people daily willing to die to leave it.

I do know that the VA has negotiated prescription prices and that they are cheaper under that than under Medicare.

http://www.herc.research.va.gov/resources/faq_b06.asp

You also don’t think that part of the reason Medicare cost more than private is the fact that the typical Medicare patient is elderly, with more hospital stays and more disabilities? You really thinks its fair to compare the typical Medicare participator with a typical working person who has private insurance?

Yes, there are VA horror stories, but I ask you to go to the home in Chula Vista and come back and report to me how terrible it is.

Having experienced the VA system I can personally say it was amazing and the care my family received was better than what I’ve experienced with my own private insurer.

“Massachusetts but they are a perfect example of what the democrats want. Interestingly enough it was instituted by a republican, Mitt Romney. Most employers have dumped their employees into the public insurance pool and the amount of people in that insurance pool has skyrocketed so badly they have started removing people from that pool, and made them ineligible for benefits.”

Most employers have dumped their workers insurance? I looked over and over and there is no factual evidence that this is happening. About 3% of employers dropped insurance and took the $249 penalty for each unisured employee. In fact 150,000 more people have become insured by their employers.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/10/mass_health_overhaul_offers_lessons_for_us_program

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/abstract/27/6/w576?HITS=10&hits=10&author1=long&maxtoshow=&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT&fulltext=employers&searchid=1&RESULTFORMAT=

Mass has more and more people under their care partly because of the recession and the loss of jobs and dwindling incomes.

I will not argue that Mass has not had a tough time and it is perfect, but your incorrect fear-mongering that thousands were dropped and employers are fleeing is inaccurate until you can provide me scholastic proof otherwise.

You also should clarify who was removed and it was immigrants living in Mass less than five years. It was not life long residents kicked out of the system. Also, those immigrants are now covered under the Commonwealth Care program. The only thing they will not cover them for is dental and hospice care. Sorry you are simply wrong it was reinstated August 10.

“If you think that introducing a public option will not have worse effects than just forcing insurance companies to lower their rates, you are in for a rude awakening. No business can compete with the government. The government does not have to pay taxes, it does not have to be fiscally responsible, and it can spend pretty much however it wants. There’s just no way to compete with that. What is more likely is that insurance will choose not to provide those insurance services and that business to lower their costs will force employees to use the public option”.

Have you studied the Swiss system, because they have magically been able to have Universal Care and Private Insurance. Sorry you are wrong and its working now. Private insurance companies are still making money even though they are regulated like the dickens.

I don’t think I will be done calling people names either.

[Author]

Posts