Proof the Right Has No Idea What The Debate is About

Southern Man said:
I already told you what my plan would be. You're obviously retarded for not understanding that, and I'd grade you an F. *shrug*

There is certainly a logical progression towards a single payer system. Employers are going to choose the cheapest plan that causes them the least headache, and the government makes a private plan expensive and onerous. In ten 15 or 20 years there will be no private insurance left. Obama's stated that as his goal. Are you saying that he lied?
Click to expand...

LOL

Okay, cool. So you're admitting that a government plan would be cheaper. So if the government can run health care more cheaply and more efficiently than the private sector and puts them out of business because they're better at it, then what is your objection to it? If they beat them in the free market by being better at it, why the heck would you want a private HMO?

Your argument is basically governemnt run health insurance would be too efficient, cheap, and too good. So you'll stick with getting screwed by your current HMO because you'd rather just leave it alone.
 
ib1yysguy said:
LOL

Okay, cool. So you're admitting that a government plan would be cheaper. So if the government can run health care more cheaply and more efficiently than the private sector and puts them out of business because they're better at it, then what is your objection to it? If they beat them in the free market by being better at it, why the heck would you want a private HMO?

Your argument is basically governemnt run health insurance would be too efficient, cheap, and too good. So you'll stick with getting screwed by your current HMO because you'd rather just leave it alone.
Click to expand...
The government pan can always be cheaper than private plans because they set the rules for the industry, artificially raising costs with paperwork that they themselves won't have to deal with.

Right now I have the option to stick with a lousy HMO or buy a better plan. That's called "freedom".
 
Southern Man said:
The government pan can always be cheaper than private plans because they set the rules for the industry, artificially raising costs with paperwork that they themselves won't have to deal with.

Right now I have the option to stick with a lousy HMO or buy a better plan. That's called "freedom".
Click to expand...

Orly.

We already know Medicare has overhead that is about about 2 percent of their budget, while private industry is anywhere from 15-30 percent. They can be inefficient because they make so much fucking money. Medicare cant because they operate on a budget.

They also don't have an advertising budget, no CEOs to pay millions of dollars, and no need to turn profit.

It's cheaper for those reasons. It has nothing to do with your stupid paperwork conspiracy.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Orly.

We already know Medicare has overhead that is about about 2 percent of their budget, while private industry is anywhere from 15-30 percent. They can be inefficient because they make so much fucking money. Medicare cant because they operate on a budget.

They also don't have an advertising budget, no CEOs to pay millions of dollars, and no need to turn profit.

It's cheaper for those reasons. It has nothing to do with your stupid paperwork conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Odd you didn't include Medicare's hidden costs.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Whatever man. I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him not be a retard.

Bottom line: It's called the government "option" because it's not mandatory.
Click to expand...

bottom line, if the government designs a plan and let's private companies sell it as well as the government, it's still the government's plan.....
 
Ib1-dumbass, these are not tiny teebag protest. Seniors are packing town halls to protest Obama-care. Democrats are pouring fuel on the firre calling them unamerican. When the one does it he's a community organizer.
Second, the gov plans have tons of fraud.
Third, many gerbers your age dont want a MANDATE to have to buy it.
Please get a real job and join the real world.
 
Considering all this talk about the evils of a single payer system consider the following countries and their land size and population.

Canada:........Land: 9976140 sq. km................ .pop: 31,902,268
Australia:...... Land: 7686850 sq.km...................pop: 20,601,000
France:..........Land: 547030 sq.km.................. pop: 59,765,983
Sweden:........Land: 449964 sq.km.................. pop: 8,876,744
Germany:......Land: 357021 sq.km..................pop: 83,251,851
Norway:........ Land: 324220 sq.km..................pop: 4,525,116
(http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_...cs_by_area.htm) (2002)

Take Germany and Norway as examples. Roughly the same land mass but Germany has 18 times the population of Norway, yet, both countries have a universal medical plan.

Or compare Sweden and France. While France has approximately 20% more land it has 7 times as many people, yet, both countries have a medical plan.

Furthermore, those countries have pension plans and other social plans and their life expectancy rate is as high or higher than the US.

Lastly, there is no political movement in any of those countries to rescind their plans and return to a "pay or suffer" system.

So, the question is, "Why do some folks feel a single payer system in the US is financially unattainable or in some other way a bad idea when it's been shown that countries, small and large, sparsely or heavily populated, can support a single payer system and that the vast majority of the population in those countries support it?"
 
Single payer is not even on the table.
And you can be some dems will vote against Obama care with all the outrage happening.
If something passes it'll be watered down big time.
 
apple0154 said:
Considering all this talk about the evils of a single payer system consider the following countries and their land size and population.

Canada:........Land: 9976140 sq. km................ .pop: 31,902,268
Australia:...... Land: 7686850 sq.km...................pop: 20,601,000
France:..........Land: 547030 sq.km.................. pop: 59,765,983
Sweden:........Land: 449964 sq.km.................. pop: 8,876,744
Germany:......Land: 357021 sq.km..................pop: 83,251,851
Norway:........ Land: 324220 sq.km..................pop: 4,525,116
(http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/world_...cs_by_area.htm) (2002)

Take Germany and Norway as examples. Roughly the same land mass but Germany has 18 times the population of Norway, yet, both countries have a universal medical plan.

Or compare Sweden and France. While France has approximately 20% more land it has 7 times as many people, yet, both countries have a medical plan.

Furthermore, those countries have pension plans and other social plans and their life expectancy rate is as high or higher than the US.

Lastly, there is no political movement in any of those countries to rescind their plans and return to a "pay or suffer" system.

So, the question is, "Why do some folks feel a single payer system in the US is financially unattainable or in some other way a bad idea when it's been shown that countries, small and large, sparsely or heavily populated, can support a single payer system and that the vast majority of the population in those countries support it?"
Click to expand...
Life expectancy is a horrible gauge. First and foremost reporting is different. The WHO suggests that low birth weight infants be called "fetal deaths" but in the US we work to save them (to be fair most of the European nations would try to save them as well, but would still list them as fetal deaths if they die in the same day), and list them as live birth and a death even the ones that die on the same day.

This raises the infant mortality rate while lowering the statistic for average life as the European nations do not list children who are born below 1000g as live births unless they survive past a certain point.

The reality is the comparisons are sometimes ridiculous, Bosnia Herzogovina has a higher rate for females than the UK, does this mean that systematic genocide should be practiced everywhere because women will live longer? Using the logic of the "life expectancy" it should.
 
democrats fucked this up big time by using the comparison to overstate the problem.
Our technology and level of service is WAY higher.
 
Topspin said:
democrats fucked this up big time by using the comparison to overstate the problem.
Our technology and level of service is WAY higher.
Click to expand...

obama screwed up his chances by having a stupid "town hall" meeting where only ABC or whatever....was given a chance to air it and the all the people were PRE picked....more of his secrecy and unopeness and people are tired of it given his repeated promises of the most transparent admin ever
 
this looks like more of a crash and burn than hillarycare.
Granted I wasn't paying as much attention back then.
 
Damocles said:
Life expectancy is a horrible gauge. First and foremost reporting is different. The WHO suggests that low birth weight infants be called "fetal deaths"...

I briefly checked WHO's website and couldn't find this but in any case, suggesting isn't the same as mandating.

...but in the US we work to save them (to be fair most of the European nations would try to save them as well, but would still list them as fetal deaths if they die in the same day) and list them as live birth and a death even the ones that die on the same day.

I've understood that how fetal deaths are classified is a state issue, not national. Has this changed?

This raises the infant mortality rate while lowering the statistic for average life as the European nations do not list children who are born below 1000g as live births unless they survive past a certain point.

What does this mean? That if they're born live <1000g. there's no birth certificate until a set amount of time passes? Do you have a link?

The reality is the comparisons are sometimes ridiculous, Bosnia Herzogovina has a higher rate for females than the UK, does this mean that systematic genocide should be practiced everywhere because women will live longer? Using the logic of the "life expectancy" it should.
Click to expand...

Pictures and articles of low birth weight babies from Europe and the U.S.

http://fisherwy.blogspot.com/2007/09...-smallest.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-4956843.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/n...nd/8186023.stm

http://www.medicine.uiowa.edu/tiniestbabies/bworder.asp
 
ib1yysguy said:
Orly.

We already know Medicare has overhead that is about about 2 percent of their budget, while private industry is anywhere from 15-30 percent. They can be inefficient because they make so much fucking money. Medicare cant because they operate on a budget.

They also don't have an advertising budget, no CEOs to pay millions of dollars, and no need to turn profit.

It's cheaper for those reasons. It has nothing to do with your stupid paperwork conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Thanks for making my point for me. A typical doctor's office has 2 office staff for every physician. The overhead is huge because the medicare paperwork burden is huge. Then there's the typical 6-month turn waiting period for payment. And the government can make the burden as big as they want and pay as slow as they want to stifle competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top