Learning About Obama Care

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
It’s Socialism at it’s finest.

CS[/quote]

I disagree , it is capitalism at it’s finest
[/quote]

True, the respect for private capital and the free decisions of the customers is practically exemplified in the US health care system.

No, really, you cannot even thing “cutthroat competition” without the US health care system coming to mind.

Which is of course why the services get cheaper and better by the minute. [/quote]

You don’t understand the system.
First the problem wasn’t and never was insurance. Insurance was a symptom, not the problem in itself. The problem with healthcare in America has several problems all of it centered around cost.
An overbearing pharmacological system devoid of competitive forces. No foreign drugs, no foreign medical devices. You open that up and you’d need to sell your pharmaceutical stocks because those bitches would fall like a stone.
No proper regulatory processes in place. Companies can sell drugs for what ever they want, while they sell them for a fraction to foreign countries. Drugs need to be the same across the board. Why does a bag of saline cost $200 dollars when it costs $.01 to make? R & D my ass.

Bottom line obama care made a bad situation worse. It would have been cheaper for everybody if the government just bought 31 million people coverage for 10 years, than this idiotic plan.
[/quote]

I believe I understand completely, I would agree with most of your statement , But insurance maybe was not a problem years ago but today they are definitely are a problem , today they are a cartel controlling all aspects of health care .

Please gold bar me Puss
[/quote]

I am not saying insurance companies are great, nor that they are not taking advantage, but they aren’t the main problem. If health care was affordable then we wouldn’t need insurance. Cost is the issue.
We are being donkey fucked. But obamacare didn’t help, it joined in and left splinters. Now we are being fucked even harder, so that a few can be fucked microscopically less. It may not hurt quite as add, but your still crapping seamen in the end.
[/quote]

They may not be the main problem but they are a big part of the whole problem.

Some how Americans think you can cut costs to the ninth degree , make a huge profit and do it all cheaper than a nonprofit organization[/quote]

Yeah, that is because that is usually true when that “non profit organization” is the government. [/quote]

Reform would be adequate , I believe the answer is to take profit out of health care and in some cases like the purchase of expensive equipment Socialize it.
[/quote]

Uhu…

That is one of the answers Marx gave why socialism is superior to capitalism, turns out that it does not quite work that way.

You need to throw a “OMGDZ the cost of competition is too high! Less competition more money for treatment!” in there though to have the whole package.

Not that it makes more sense then, but as a head nod to Karl.
[/quote]

I personally do not feel Socialism is superior to Capitalism , I do how ever feel that America was supposed to take the best from ALL systems , some where down the way the Republicans convinced us that we were meant to be a Capitalistic society[/quote]

Well the big corporations do take from the public when they socialize the cost and privatize the profits. Why is that ok? An example of that is when say the privately owned natural gas company digs up the road to put gas pipes in to increase distribution to those who don’t have it. Now when it comes time to fix those roads it comes out of the public revenues. Also tax laws are in favor of the powerful and wealthy and they hardly pay any tax at all, where’s the patriotism in that? I mean we love America right? well why don’t they put their money where their mouth is? Oh I forgot they have to make profits for share holders first screw the public let the little people pay.

62

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?

63

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?[/quote]

No Its my understanding that a hospital emergency room , can’t turn an uninsured person away. I have heard of cases where the hospital can deny them but has to contact another hospital to take them. Of course they can’t pay so hospitals charge insurance companies more for those covered.

64

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
It’s Socialism at it’s finest.

CS[/quote]

I disagree , it is capitalism at it’s finest
[/quote]

True, the respect for private capital and the free decisions of the customers is practically exemplified in the US health care system.

No, really, you cannot even thing “cutthroat competition” without the US health care system coming to mind.

Which is of course why the services get cheaper and better by the minute. [/quote]

You don’t understand the system.
First the problem wasn’t and never was insurance. Insurance was a symptom, not the problem in itself. The problem with healthcare in America has several problems all of it centered around cost.
An overbearing pharmacological system devoid of competitive forces. No foreign drugs, no foreign medical devices. You open that up and you’d need to sell your pharmaceutical stocks because those bitches would fall like a stone.
No proper regulatory processes in place. Companies can sell drugs for what ever they want, while they sell them for a fraction to foreign countries. Drugs need to be the same across the board. Why does a bag of saline cost $200 dollars when it costs $.01 to make? R & D my ass.

Bottom line obama care made a bad situation worse. It would have been cheaper for everybody if the government just bought 31 million people coverage for 10 years, than this idiotic plan.
[/quote]

I believe I understand completely, I would agree with most of your statement , But insurance maybe was not a problem years ago but today they are definitely are a problem , today they are a cartel controlling all aspects of health care .

Please gold bar me Puss
[/quote]

I am not saying insurance companies are great, nor that they are not taking advantage, but they aren’t the main problem. If health care was affordable then we wouldn’t need insurance. Cost is the issue.
We are being donkey fucked. But obamacare didn’t help, it joined in and left splinters. Now we are being fucked even harder, so that a few can be fucked microscopically less. It may not hurt quite as add, but your still crapping seamen in the end.
[/quote]

They may not be the main problem but they are a big part of the whole problem.

Some how Americans think you can cut costs to the ninth degree , make a huge profit and do it all cheaper than a nonprofit organization[/quote]

Yeah, that is because that is usually true when that “non profit organization” is the government. [/quote]

Reform would be adequate , I believe the answer is to take profit out of health care and in some cases like the purchase of expensive equipment Socialize it.
[/quote]

Uhu…

That is one of the answers Marx gave why socialism is superior to capitalism, turns out that it does not quite work that way.

You need to throw a “OMGDZ the cost of competition is too high! Less competition more money for treatment!” in there though to have the whole package.

Not that it makes more sense then, but as a head nod to Karl.
[/quote]

I personally do not feel Socialism is superior to Capitalism , I do how ever feel that America was supposed to take the best from ALL systems , some where down the way the Republicans convinced us that we were meant to be a Capitalistic society[/quote]

Well the big corporations do take from the public when they socialize the cost and privatize the profits. Why is that ok? An example of that is when say the privately owned natural gas company digs up the road to put gas pipes in to increase distribution to those who don’t have it. Now when it comes time to fix those roads it comes out of the public revenues. Also tax laws are in favor of the powerful and wealthy and they hardly pay any tax at all, where’s the patriotism in that? I mean we love America right? well why don’t they put their money where their mouth is? Oh I forgot they have to make profits for share holders first screw the public let the little people pay.
[/quote]

I know it is a stretch of the imagination but if we did have an efficiently run Government we could easily out do private market on cost of good health care

65

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?[/quote]

No Its my understanding that a hospital emergency room , can’t turn an uninsured person away. I have heard of cases where the hospital can deny them but has to contact another hospital to take them. Of course they can’t pay so hospitals charge insurance companies more for those covered. [/quote]

So they are forced into a market.

66

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?[/quote]

No Its my understanding that a hospital emergency room , can’t turn an uninsured person away. I have heard of cases where the hospital can deny them but has to contact another hospital to take them. Of course they can’t pay so hospitals charge insurance companies more for those covered. [/quote]

So they are forced into a market.[/quote]

well its my understanding of the system now is that they will not have to pay if they can’t afford it or the hospital with put a lean on their house or make arrangements for them to pay what they can. I guess it depends on their income status. We are all on the same ship but there are many who aren’t paying their way. And just being human we all know the chances of never getting sick is slim slim indeed. Your questions are factual questions so a straight answer is needed not a bullshit line.

67

If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.

68

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens.

69

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

So they are forced into a market.[/quote]

Well, no - they now have a bill for services rendered at the ER.

70

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

Hey, I have a splendid idea what Obama could have done.

At the very least he could have used the interstate commerce clause in order to make commerce “regular”, i.e. pulling the states mandates that you could not shop nationwide for health insurance.

That way, they could mandate that every contract had to include acupuncture, massages and whatnot, but if just one state did not you could get cheap insurance.

But noooooo…

Bastard.

Anyway, yeah non profit healthcare is so fucking fantastic that I only go to private doctors if I have any problem that it possibly could fuck up, which is almost everything as far as I am concerned.

And because I do not like to wait for a year to get an appointment.

Seriously, one year, I made a private appointment and had my result one week later.

71

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…

OMFG!

How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?

OMG!

America has an ethical obligation?

Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?

You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions.

72

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…

OMFG!

How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?

OMG!

America has an ethical obligation?

Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?

You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]

a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.

Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!

Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?

73

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…

OMFG!

How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?

OMG!

America has an ethical obligation?

Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?

You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]

a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.

Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!

Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?

[/quote]

No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.

In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.

And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.

Lead by example.

To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.

BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.

It just costs a lot more money.

I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.

You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.

74

Patients enrolled in Medicaid have worse survival rates than those with private insurance or even no insurance at all, according to a new study focused on Ohio Medicaid recipients published in the journal Cancer.

Researchers Siran Koroukian, Paul Bakaki, and Derek Raghavan compared survival and five-year mortality with Medicaid status in more than 11,000 Ohio adults aged 15 to 54 years and diagnosed in the years 1996-2002 with eight highly treatable cancers. They also sorted the Medicaid enrollees into two categories?those enrolled at the time of their diagnosis and those enrolled afterwards?to get more insight into how coverage impacts outcomes.

The researchers found that compared with non-Medicaid recipients, patients in the Medicaid pre-diagnosis and peri/post-diagnosis groups experienced unfavorable survival outcomes. Of the non-Medicaid patients, fewer than one in 10 died within five years of their cancer diagnosis, whereas more than one in five Medicaid patients died during that period.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/20/study-patients-battling-cancer-medicaid-worse-being-uninsured

This is what you want for all Americans to help those 5% that cannot afford health insurance.

Congratutlations.

75

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…

OMFG!

How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?

OMG!

America has an ethical obligation?

Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?

You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]

a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.

Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!

Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?

[/quote]

No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.

In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.

And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.

Lead by example.

To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.

BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.

It just costs a lot more money.

I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.

You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]

well your wrong the supreme court did.

secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!

Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.

Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.

Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.

76

[quote]orion wrote:
Patients enrolled in Medicaid have worse survival rates than those with private insurance or even no insurance at all, according to a new study focused on Ohio Medicaid recipients published in the journal Cancer.

Researchers Siran Koroukian, Paul Bakaki, and Derek Raghavan compared survival and five-year mortality with Medicaid status in more than 11,000 Ohio adults aged 15 to 54 years and diagnosed in the years 1996-2002 with eight highly treatable cancers. They also sorted the Medicaid enrollees into two categories?those enrolled at the time of their diagnosis and those enrolled afterwards?to get more insight into how coverage impacts outcomes.

The researchers found that compared with non-Medicaid recipients, patients in the Medicaid pre-diagnosis and peri/post-diagnosis groups experienced unfavorable survival outcomes. Of the non-Medicaid patients, fewer than one in 10 died within five years of their cancer diagnosis, whereas more than one in five Medicaid patients died during that period.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/20/study-patients-battling-cancer-medicaid-worse-being-uninsured

This is what you want for all Americans to help those 5% that cannot afford health insurance.

Congratutlations. [/quote]

assuming that study was true and assuming there was nothing wrong with the design of the study and assuming there were enough people in the study. But grant that its all true and honky dory, it doesn’t follow that the system itself is at fault, we are talking about the cost effectiveness of the system. There are many questions raised here.

5%?? try 16.3% in 2010 or nearly 50 Million folks without insurance!! Go read about the people who lost everything or people who insurance refused to pay cause they claimed they had a per-existing condition. We American’s don’t need to go to the extreme right wing school of " you get sick you die!"

77

Oh silly I mean silee, people are not refused healthcare here in America. I am by definiton a poor American. My private healthcare has paid over 1.5 million while I have paid only 10 grand, while the federal gov. denied my child medicare because I made 29 grand working 2 jobs. Tell me who was telling who to die, the left wing who controls the govement…
Orion you are to smart for that silee…

78

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
If not-for-profit insurance is so good, why don’t you start your own not-for-profit insurance company? Surely you could outcompete those for-profit insurance companies and make them go out of business with your cost savings, and you’d be doing great things for humanity in the process.

If you want you can look towards MN insurance:

Bottom line, not for profit insurance isn’t the going to solve our woes.[/quote]

You can be as cynical as you want to be, but we know for a fact that a not for profit doesn’t have administrative costs and salary to be paid, actually quite exorbitant and profits to be make for share holders.

Nothing is perfect and yes there would still be problems but it would be a step in the right direction. If say we had a small community of relatively equally wealthy folks then for profit could work, for how long who knows. But our problems in America are large scale problems.
and even though the government is not perfect it is better than leaving our rationing of health care to insurance companies who’s first obligation is to make a profit for share holders. No conflict of interest there for you? The health of individuals does impact the health of all in one way or another. and one of the biggest factors here is the ethical and moral responsibility of a Country, America, towards its citizens. [/quote]

You know, we leave the nation food supply in the hands of for ptofit organizations…

OMFG!

How could a car market ever work if people cannot afford the exact same cars?

OMG!

America has an ethical obligation?

Cool beans, how does something that does not really exist manage that?

You could start a whole new line of ethics, the ethics of legal fictions. [/quote]

a lot of farmers are subsidized either not to grow or to bring to market.

Did anyone say that the market shouldn’t function with other commodities? No!

Well conservatives like to talk about the moral fiber of the nation. Plus There are ethical questions when many Americans are not covered cause they can’t afford it cause they have no work. What’s wrong with asking about the morality of allowing the many uninsured to suffer even more? We declared that corporations were persons, do you like that legal fiction by the way?

[/quote]

No one declared that corporations are persons but nice try.

In related news Roe vs Wade was not really about abortion either.

And yes, there are ethical questions and if you feel that people have the moral obligation to help other people in need, go out and do so.

Lead by example.

To turn your supposed obligations over to the state is the morally cheapest, most cowardly and inefficient way of dealing with just about anything.

BTW, if you have some forms of cancer, you die sooner with Medicaid than without it.

It just costs a lot more money.

I am sorry, I think people are better off without that kind of help and I live in such a system, you dont.

You are just the last in an enormous line of completely deluded people who think that they, finally, will make socialism work.[/quote]

well your wrong the supreme court did.

secondly, its about a woman’s right to choose!

Third response lacks logic. From the fact that there is a moral problem with lack of health care justice it doesn’t follow that this is a specific individuals problem.

Look bud, there are a lot of opinions on the health care system in Canada, I am not talking about that, and not all single payer systems would be exactly the same.

Look no need to call name its usually done because one has nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

Also you are complete confused about socialism. secondly the totality of the AMerica economy is a mixed system , with saftey net for those who need it. Plus tax breaks for the 1%. your from canada but are you a CEO? Apparently up there you are able to get private care, who pays for that? you stated you get private care. Medicare is a good system and its cost effective, there is fraud but that’s not exclusive to the system.
[/quote]

No, it did not.

No, its not.

Splendid, so dont make it anyone elses by demanding that they pay for other people.

I did not you call you names, I might though.

I would probably start with ignoramus because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Finally, look at my Avatar.

Right under it you see where I live.

God, I hope you are not a second older than 18.

edited. the “not” was kind of missing

79

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?[/quote]

No Its my understanding that a hospital emergency room , can’t turn an uninsured person away. I have heard of cases where the hospital can deny them but has to contact another hospital to take them. Of course they can’t pay so hospitals charge insurance companies more for those covered. [/quote]

So they are forced into a market.[/quote]

Sigh. No, the federal government cannot coerce individual people to enter a market. It can, and does, regulate institutions and businesses. In this instance a business/organization is being regulated, not a person’s willful participation in a market.

80

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
For those against the mandate I’d like to know your opinion on the following.

  1. The millions who lose insurance.

  2. Uninsured people getting treatment for whatever reason and driving up overall costs anyway.

  3. The root of the problem being healthcare for profit, as long as this happens costs will be higher for consumers.[/quote]

All of those are inconsequential to the main problem. The root of the matter is that the federal government does not have the right or the authority to force you to enter into a market, or to force you into a contract. That’s where it starts and stops for me.[/quote]

Right now what happens if an uninsured person is walking down the street and gets hit by a car being badly injured and unconscious. Are there any services that would get them to a hospital? Once there are they turned away because they have no insurance or money?[/quote]

No Its my understanding that a hospital emergency room , can’t turn an uninsured person away. I have heard of cases where the hospital can deny them but has to contact another hospital to take them. Of course they can’t pay so hospitals charge insurance companies more for those covered. [/quote]

So they are forced into a market.[/quote]

Sigh. No, the federal government cannot coerce individual people to enter a market. It can, and does, regulate institutions and businesses. In this instance a business/organization is being regulated, not a person’s willful participation in a market.
[/quote]

Well said Aragorn. And soon I’m sure the rest of the country will see this when the SC strikes down Obamacare for being the social engineering project that it is.