[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still want El Tankerito to explain to me why “an artist should be free to pursue his/her passions without having to worry about paying for healthcare” but a construction worker should not.
He hinted that artists “contribute more to society” than other groups. Why does a guy who wants to play the flute in coffee shops contribute more than say I, a guy who builds our public works infrastructure?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Why should the coffee shop flutist get a pass and I, who have mortgaged my home, invested my capital, and devoted my life to my small construction business have to push the flutist’s healthcare wheelbarrow?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Is it because I theoretically have a greater potential for financial gain? If so, OK, then what if I’m the dog sled musher? Why does the flutist in the Palmer, Alaska coffee shop contribute more than the Palmer dog sled musher?
Tell me…I gotta know…[/quote]
That’s not what I said, you have completely twisted my words with almost deliberate ignorance… I have already told you “that’s good for all those people”. That goes for all dog sled mushers.
What I said was artists/musicians/actors happen to contribute more to society (economically speaking, not as people) than porn stars or dog sled mushers, which is one reason why pelosi would choose to talk to them. Pelosi also probably talked to them because it often takes a certain amount of fiscal freedom to be a successful artist. What’s your issue with that?;
Regarding your health care point, I am fully aware that health care expenses are attributed to MANY things, some of which are not related to hospital efficiency. A very big one is the amount of E.R. care, another is the inefficiency of medicare and medicaid, another is the cost of prescription drugs and their research. Administrative costs are also a HUGE participant, which is why American care HAS to be simplified. An example would be a few basic public options and an array of tailored options in the private sector (basically we need to eliminate our inane multipayer system).
For anyone who still doubts the inefficiency of the u.s. system, this is your proof.
For anyone that would like a written analysis of how our money is spent compared to better and cheaper systems, here you go.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
This brings up a really strong point. The single positive response from govt healthcare that might come to fruition is shorter lines at the ER.
“The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem.” I’m eye to eye with you here too. Insurance lobbyists push our reps to require employers to cover certain areas in their healthcare plans. It’s another example of “you have to have this by law”, which expanded into healthcare as we know it today. Why can’t healthcare be more like car insurance where you pick and choose exactly what you want to cover and the price is adjusted accordingly? The individual decides how much risk he is willing to take with a baseline in place to protect others. Oh, wait. That sounds like freedom of choice to me. We can’t have that now can we?
“A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.” Proof? Links please. I am not “always drawn to the extremes” as you initially stated, but find myself more or less in the middle, so I would appreciate your supporting documentation. I have requested info from acquantances and other Tnationers previously to help me understand their thought process on govt. healthcare, but none have followed through.
^ LOOK! I found the return key. My IQ just went through the roof and my comments are more valuable due to proper punctuation.
[/quote]
What a shock to find someone who thinks a little differently than me who’s not a douche.
Well, there is a lot of info on the net regarding this topic which is fairly reliable. I had an old textbook which would be perfect for this but i sold it for cash.
This link is a little outdated but shows the basic costs of healthcare per person, share of GDP, etc., in developed nations. The figures for the u.s. in this link are considerably higher now. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
As for the benefit of our health care, the World Health Organization takes a decent stab at the tricky job of ranking health care systems around the globe. In their last ranking, we were 37. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is at least a realtive rating. This wiki link is their ranking.
Most of the nations above us on that list have a mix of public/private or are all public I believe. France has an efficient system, germany does as well. However, one thing all successful systems have are low costs. We do not.
Is there anything else you would like cited?
[/quote]
Well, those numbers are far from your claims. But are there studies that compensate the numbers for things like, diet, activity levels, obesity? A fat sedentary American is going to spend more on health care than a thinner active European, that doesn’t make our system more expensive or less efficient.[/quote]
Why? The numbers on costs are perfectly accurate. As far as better systems go, I cited france and germany. Both are more satisfied with their care.
As for compensating for diet, obesity, and activity levels it’s a double edged sword. I presume your argument would be “just because Americans choose to be fat, doesn’t mean our system is broken.” However, access to quality care on a regular basis is the best way to deter obesity, diabetes, or anything you listed. indeed, one of the reasons our nation as a whole is so unhealthy is because we have so many people that are uninsured. You are right though, those factors are ultimately personal choices. Still, a ranking of 37 is nowhere near the top ten.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
LOL - the burdens of healthcare costs . . .
let me let you all in on a big secret . . . the government is not paying for healthcare . . . YOU ARE . . . its called taxes . . . all you’ve managed to do is to allow the governemt to take your money and decide how to spend it for you and you call it freedom from the burdens - LMAO - ya’ll’re stupid . . .[/quote]
I hate to break it to you, but every hospital bill that you’ve ever paid covers the cost of dealing with uninsured patients. We will always have to pay for the needy when it comes to healthcare as it is a basic necessity.
The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem. This method of E.R. care is exponentially more costly than regular doctors visits, which is why anyone who buys from a private insurance company in the u.s. will pay more than double than the rest of the developed world.
Any way you slice the issue, people require healthcare. A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.[/quote]
This brings up a really strong point. The single positive response from govt healthcare that might come to fruition is shorter lines at the ER.
“The fundamental flaw of a completely private insurance system is that the people who can’t afford the high costs and absurd standards of the insurance companies still need at least basic Health care. The problem is they get health care at our expense every time they have an accident or major health problem.” I’m eye to eye with you here too. Insurance lobbyists push our reps to require employers to cover certain areas in their healthcare plans. It’s another example of “you have to have this by law”, which expanded into healthcare as we know it today. Why can’t healthcare be more like car insurance where you pick and choose exactly what you want to cover and the price is adjusted accordingly? The individual decides how much risk he is willing to take with a baseline in place to protect others. Oh, wait. That sounds like freedom of choice to me. We can’t have that now can we?
“A public method of insurance would be the optimal way to reduce the burden on the american people and help you keep more cash in your pocket after hospital bills. This theory is not hypothetical but is being carried out in many countries with better systems than ours.” Proof? Links please. I am not “always drawn to the extremes” as you initially stated, but find myself more or less in the middle, so I would appreciate your supporting documentation. I have requested info from acquantances and other Tnationers previously to help me understand their thought process on govt. healthcare, but none have followed through.
^ LOOK! I found the return key. My IQ just went through the roof and my comments are more valuable due to proper punctuation.
[/quote]
What a shock to find someone who thinks a little differently than me who’s not a douche.
Well, there is a lot of info on the net regarding this topic which is fairly reliable. I had an old textbook which would be perfect for this but i sold it for cash.
This link is a little outdated but shows the basic costs of healthcare per person, share of GDP, etc., in developed nations. The figures for the u.s. in this link are considerably higher now. http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
As for the benefit of our health care, the World Health Organization takes a decent stab at the tricky job of ranking health care systems around the globe. In their last ranking, we were 37. Is it perfectly accurate? No, but it is at least a realtive rating. This wiki link is their ranking.
Most of the nations above us on that list have a mix of public/private or are all public I believe. France has an efficient system, germany does as well. However, one thing all successful systems have are low costs. We do not.
Is there anything else you would like cited?
[/quote]
Well, those numbers are far from your claims. But are there studies that compensate the numbers for things like, diet, activity levels, obesity? A fat sedentary American is going to spend more on health care than a thinner active European, that doesn’t make our system more expensive or less efficient.[/quote]
Why? The numbers on costs are perfectly accurate. As far as better systems go, I cited france and germany. Both are more satisfied with their care.
As for compensating for diet, obesity, and activity levels it’s a double edged sword. I presume your argument would be “just because Americans choose to be fat, doesn’t mean our system is broken.” However, access to quality care on a regular basis is the best way to deter obesity, diabetes, or anything you listed. indeed, one of the reasons our nation as a whole is so unhealthy is because we have so many people that are uninsured. You are right though, those factors are ultimately personal choices. Still, a ranking of 37 is nowhere near the top ten.
[/quote]
People in America are fat and lazy because they don’t have enough access to doctors. Nice.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still want El Tankerito to explain to me why “an artist should be free to pursue his/her passions without having to worry about paying for healthcare” but a construction worker should not.
He hinted that artists “contribute more to society” than other groups. Why does a guy who wants to play the flute in coffee shops contribute more than say I, a guy who builds our public works infrastructure?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Why should the coffee shop flutist get a pass and I, who have mortgaged my home, invested my capital, and devoted my life to my small construction business have to push the flutist’s healthcare wheelbarrow?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Is it because I theoretically have a greater potential for financial gain? If so, OK, then what if I’m the dog sled musher? Why does the flutist in the Palmer, Alaska coffee shop contribute more than the Palmer dog sled musher?
Tell me…I gotta know…[/quote]
That’s not what I said, you have completely twisted my words with almost deliberate ignorance… I have already told you “that’s good for all those people”. That goes for all dog sled mushers.
What I said was artists/musicians/actors happen to contribute more to society (economically speaking, not as people) than porn stars or dog sled mushers, which is one reason why pelosi would choose to talk to them. Pelosi also probably talked to them because it often takes a certain amount of fiscal freedom to be a successful artist. What’s your issue with that?;
Regarding your health care point, I am fully aware that health care expenses are attributed to MANY things, some of which are not related to hospital efficiency. A very big one is the amount of E.R. care, another is the inefficiency of medicare and medicaid, another is the cost of prescription drugs and their research. Administrative costs are also a HUGE participant, which is why American care HAS to be simplified. An example would be a few basic public options and an array of tailored options in the private sector (basically we need to eliminate our inane multipayer system).
For anyone who still doubts the inefficiency of the u.s. system, this is your proof.
For anyone that would like a written analysis of how our money is spent compared to better and cheaper systems, here you go.
F*** all of your stats - you’re missing the point.
What I choose or do not choose to spend on my healthcare is supposed to be up to me. healthcare is not a collective - it is an individual matter. The systemic costs of healthcare can be aggregated and studied. But because the underlying choices about diet, exercise and lifestyle ARE up to the individual - then the resulting care or lack of care should be up to the individual as well. The aggregrate costs and the rising cost of healthcare are not proof that all healthcare needs to be collectivised - it is proof that an insurance system based on profit and government regulation and price setting via DOI’s and mandates causes an exponential rise in insurance costs over time. It is not the care that is driving the costs - studies have proven conclusively that individual treatment costs have become less when compared wth the efficacy of the treatments involved (treatments were individually cheaper in the past, but it took more of them to have the same overall health improvement affect).
So the bottom line is - if you what to lower insurance costs - reform the regulations on insurance and get the government out of the medical business. Prices will drop dramatically.
All of the rest is bullshit and hogwash - you are only justifying removal of personal responsibility and personal decisions in managing ones lifestyle and healthcare for a SUPPOSED improvement in insurance costs and availability
Insurance is not Healthcare!!! Insurance is only a means to pay for healthcare . . .
F*** all of your stats - you’re missing the point.
What I choose or do not choose to spend on my healthcare is supposed to be up to me. healthcare is not a collective - it is an individual matter. The systemic costs of healthcare can be aggregated and studied. But because the underlying choices about diet, exercise and lifestyle ARE up to the individual - then the resulting care or lack of care should be up to the individual as well. The aggregrate costs and the rising cost of healthcare are not proof that all healthcare needs to be collectivised - it is proof that an insurance system based on profit and government regulation and price setting via DOI’s and mandates causes an exponential rise in insurance costs over time. It is not the care that is driving the costs - studies have proven conclusively that individual treatment costs have become less when compared wth the efficacy of the treatments involved (treatments were individually cheaper in the past, but it took more of them to have the same overall health improvement affect).
So the bottom line is - if you what to lower insurance costs - reform the regulations on insurance and get the government out of the medical business. Prices will drop dramatically.
All of the rest is bullshit and hogwash - you are only justifying removal of personal responsibility and personal decisions in managing ones lifestyle and healthcare for a SUPPOSED improvement in insurance costs and availability
Insurance is not Healthcare!!! Insurance is only a means to pay for healthcare . . . [/quote]
Exactly what I was thinking. How can you argue that involving the govt in healthcare will lower costs? The budget deficits over the next 10 years from this new healthcare alone are shocking. Sure people might be happy with govt run medicare/aide, but it’s a grossly overpriced system that is bankrupting our country and results in billions of dollars lost to fraud each year.
Look at all the govt programs that were designed to “help” the American people that have ballooned out of control. Social Security is no different. “We will take some of your money and put it into a savings account for you!” BS! They have been spending every dime they take in and funding SS by printing money, which is a hidden tax on you and me because it devalues every dollar we have in our wallets or bank accounts.
I don’t dispute the fact that healthcare is too expensive, but govt intervention will only lead to additional costs. How do you not see that this is just another power grab and an effort to strengthen the dependency of people on govt?
Your views will change drastically during the 2-3 years after college while you get paid a fraction of what your paycheck starts at and wonder where it all goes. The liberal midset has infiltrated every public and private education facility in the country…and I went to a VERY conservative college. This is not about selfishness or an unwillingness to help the less fortunate. It is about doing such in the most financially responsible way, which govt run healthcare is not.
Back to the forum topic. Right now Pelosi’s congress is abandoning their responsibilty to develop a longe term fiscal plan. This is one of the biggest issues our country is facing according to public surveys. This is just another example that they don’t care what we think.
She is clearly in la la land with her ASSumptions about this country not having people that want to milk the system by living off the fat of the land, be it through milking either UC or public welfare projects. I think many of the wealthy politicians like her probably are very insulated from your lower class type bottom feeders of American society.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I still want El Tankerito to explain to me why “an artist should be free to pursue his/her passions without having to worry about paying for healthcare” but a construction worker should not.
He hinted that artists “contribute more to society” than other groups. Why does a guy who wants to play the flute in coffee shops contribute more than say I, a guy who builds our public works infrastructure?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Why should the coffee shop flutist get a pass and I, who have mortgaged my home, invested my capital, and devoted my life to my small construction business have to push the flutist’s healthcare wheelbarrow?
Tell me…I gotta know…
Is it because I theoretically have a greater potential for financial gain? If so, OK, then what if I’m the dog sled musher? Why does the flutist in the Palmer, Alaska coffee shop contribute more than the Palmer dog sled musher?
Tell me…I gotta know…[/quote]
I actually agree with you here. But again, I think she is insulated from your junkie type “artists” crawling around the East side of Manhattan who will be getting their ambulance trips to the ER subsidized by the American taxpayer.
Her spoken communication skills are just not there. The fact that she is speak of anything is ironic and hilarious. Reminds me of Bush and the words he created on the fly in front of a microphone.