Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4
1 edit | reply to KrK
Re: Healthcare Reform--- the REAL agenda »www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvy26x5ixV0
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQBccTF7Ygo&NR=1 |
|
|
|
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Aww TK, what? No sense of humor?
Well anyway, I gave it a listen. Unfortunately, As soon as you recognize the voice you might as well stop. You know that at best, severe distortion follows, or at worst, complete falsehood.
--
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini
|
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to Romney2012
Your video focuses on how universal healthcare will replace privately-purchased healthcare, ultimately making it illegal to purchase goods and services on the "open market."
However, our current (and heavily socialized) healthcare system (depicted as a "market") made it illegal for millions of Americans to purchase the healthcare goods and services they would have chosen absent laws setting quality standards higher than a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce.
It seems like no difference. We're just saying that if compulsion is good enough for some Americans, it's good enough for all!
Mark |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | The only sure thing is doing nothing will take everyone down and out. |
|
 rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | reply to KrK
It will hurt his portfolio! God forbid! |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by rawgerz:It will hurt his portfolio! God forbid! If you think that is true, you REALLY don't understand investing. My portfolio will be adjusted by me no matter what Healthcare plan becomes law. Some areas of business will suffer and others will make out better no matter which version is passed. My portfolio is affected more by the health of the overall global economy than it is by 1 industry or another.
And if the abortion of HR 3200 comes out unchanged from Congress, I can always pay cash for premium care if it messes up the health care system too badly. Unfortunately there are a LOT of seniors that won't be able to say the same.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Romney2012:if the abortion of HR 3200 comes out unchanged from Congress, I can always pay cash for premium care if it messes up the health care system too badly. Unfortunately there are a LOT of seniors that won't be able to say the same. There are millions of average Americans who pay a premium for healthcare today (due to our artificial quality standards compared to the rest of the world). And, millions who can't even do that (and are prohibited by law from purchasing the level of healthcare available to others around the world).
If the scenario you described is undesirable, why should we live with today's?
Mark |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:However, our current (and heavily socialized) healthcare system (depicted as a "market") made it illegal for millions of Americans to purchase the healthcare goods and services they would have chosen absent laws setting quality standards higher than a "free market" of willing buyers and sellers would produce. You keep claiming this but you, nor anyone else who argues for nationalization of the health care system, has shown how people who cannot afford insurance are systematically being denied health care. I would think the 47 trillion (or whatever the BS number is today) people who lack insurance would have died off by now since they lack insurance.
If you think that our system, which currently enables people of lesser means to get high quality care which they cannot afford to buy, is so bad, would you argue for replacing it with a system that allows for medical professionals to receive less training, and offer such subpar services to people simply because they cannot afford to pay?
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
3 edits | said by pnh102:You keep claiming this but you, nor anyone else who argues for nationalization of the health care system, has shown how people who cannot afford insurance are systematically being denied health care. We all know you don't get something for nothing. There was a reason for criminalizing lessor (yet world class) standards in the interest of producing "the best healthcare in the world." Why? Because a significant number of people were willing to buy and sell those lessor goods and services.
You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Those who can afford the resulting socialized market (with standards set higher by public law than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually) pay more. That's money they could have used for something else.
The further down the wealth scale you go, it's logical that individuals will make choices to buy food, clothing and housing before the above-described inflated healthcare.
If you want to say that the above doesn't "deny" anyone anything, then we can also say that Republican scare-tactics that individuals will be delayed care (under universal healthcare) won't deny them anything either.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102:If you think that our system, which currently enables people of lesser means to get high quality care which they cannot afford to buy, is so bad, would you argue for replacing it with a system that allows for medical professionals to receive less training, and offer such subpar services to people simply because they cannot afford to pay? Sorry I didn't reply to that paragraph. I'll do so here instead of editing my previous reply.
I'd be open to that. However, I would word it slightly differently: "because that's all they can afford to pay."
The problem we have today, as I see it, is that we've used Public Law to set healthcare standards higher than willing buyers and sellers would negotiate consensually. (And, higher than the rest of the world, as evidenced by Republicans constantly telling us we have "the best healthcare system in the world.").
This creates a social responsibility to take care of those who can't afford our socialized "market." But, as soon as that discussion arises Republicans (primarily) object that this would be "socialism." What they really mean is: "coercion." Taking from one and giving to another. An "entitlement."
But, that's what we essentially did when we criminalized healthcare goods and services in the interest of creating a higher standard of living (a collective goal). I.e., a more predictable "market," (reducing the personal responsibility of some Americans to properly investigate their choice of goods and services) at the expense of others, who go without.
If Republicans don't like coercion, they shouldn't like the coercion we have now (and leading to growing demands for universalization of our already socialized "market"). But, as we've regularly seen in the Friday-Night threads, they're selective in their opposition to coercion. Using principle-based rhetoric against others which they aren't willing to apply to themselves.
Personally, I could support greater disparity of choices in the market. Not a truly Darwinian market (as many squeamish Republicans argue against in their parade of horribles).
But, absent that, I think there's no other choice than to make the existing socialized market more equally beneficial to all society.
Mark |
|
rawgerzThe hell was that?Premium
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA | reply to Romney2012
I don't remember hearing that medicare is being disbanded. And being as Republican as you are, you must be completely against medicare as it is purely socialism.
--
You can't make all the people happy all of the time. But it should be common sense to shoot for the majority. |
|
 kapilThe Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL | reply to Romney2012
"we've seen the long lines in Britan and Canada".
Umm, really congressman douchebag? 'Cause you sound like the typical American who claims this is the best fucking country on Earth, blessed by God and all, but doesn't own a passport that would allow travel beyond our borders.
Also, he said "private sector has to pay taxes" twice. Because, you know, taxes are twice as scary! Boo!
What is this bullshit about "public option doesn't have to pay taxes or pay employees". Really? Don't government workers pay taxes on their salaries? ...and of course the workers pay taxes because they get paid a salary to begin with.
The real difference? the private insurers have to make a PROFIT...where as a public plan would be, in essence, non profit.
I will debate the merits of an argument all day and all night. But when you resort to spreading FUD, that's when you're not worthy of my time.
--
»www.VoIPTrunk.com |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by kapil:"we've seen the long lines in Britan and Canada". Umm, really ...? I'm somewhere between you and G&S (whom you quoted). I think it's undeniable that spreading around a monopolistic (artificially limited supply) will result in one of the following (or a mixture of all):
1. Reduction/delay of services compared to what those who can afford today's socialized "highest bidder" environment receive.
2. Higher overall costs (as society pays the monopoly to treat more people).
3. Reduction of quality (as the monopoly is diluted to meet demand but keep societal costs down).
That's just basic economics. It's why Canadians (and others) come here for healthcare. It's why the Frontline piece I posted last Friday discussed delays in care in Britain.
I think it's worth acknowledging this reality to get past the partisan rhetoric (using "long lines" to sway public opinion). And, which similarly denies the problem we have today: Millions of Americans who don't even have a line to get into. Paying more for goods and services than they can afford (and would be willing to buy in other countries with more reasonable standards).
Mark |
|
Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | said by amigo_boy:said by kapil:"we've seen the long lines in Britan and Canada". Umm, really ...? I'm somewhere between you and G&S (whom you quoted). That wasn't me he quoted, but Congressman Ryan from the video.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | reply to kapil
That's really what Fiore's piece is all about. It's poking fun at all the FUD going on to stop Healthcare reform. |
|
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Again. Show me where top quality health care is being denied to people of lesser means on a regular basis.
--
Blagojevich / Madoff 2012! |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by pnh102:said by amigo_boy:You can't criminalize those goods and services without "denying" something to someone. Again. Show me where top quality health care is being denied to people of lesser means on a regular basis. It's not. In the same way nobody will be delayed care when today's socialized system is universalized.
Right?
Mark |
|
4 edits | reply to amigo_boy
Actually, amigo, I have to disagree with you here.
said by amigo_boy :
1. Reduction/delay of services compared to what those who can afford today's socialized "highest bidder" environment receive.
You're right, but since a doctor makes the decisions as to who gets what treatment and when, people who really need it can immediately be moved to the front of the line.
said by amigo_boy :
2. Higher overall costs (as society pays the monopoly to treat more people).
Our society *already* pays for everyone, in the form of expensive ER treatments for those who were unable to or neglected early and inexpensive treatment for their problems.
This isn't an issue solely of the uninsured. In fact, the people who are most affected by our screwed up healthcare system are the upper lower-class and lower middle-class. Those are people who can't afford decent health-care insurance and thus are disincentivized from getting routine checkups and other low cost prevention treatment.
said by amigo_boy :
3. Reduction of quality (as the monopoly is diluted to meet demand but keep societal costs down).
For this I will simply quote someone from Britain who posted this in another forum:
The US is ahead of the rest of the world in many sectors, but medicine and healthcare is not one of them. Prevention of stem cell research in the US by the Bush administration has set the US 5 to 10 years behind other nations, but specifically South Korea and Britain are well ahead of the US in this area.
If you want state of the art treatments in Britain through the NHS you're out of luck though as cost/benefit analysis has to be done. What a lot of people on the Republican side of the healthcare debate conveniently ignore though is that Britain also has private healthcare as well, and, if you choose to you can pay a little more to be treated privately with part of the costs subsidised by the NHS. Even with taxes taken into account, you still end up paying less than in the US, not only for a level of care equivalent/better than in the US, but in a nation that is ahead of the US in medical research (again, other than Finance, Medical is one of the UKs top industry sectors - that's why the UK is one of the worlds top 5/6 economies in the world whilst also being one of the only ones that high up with no worthwhile manufacturing sector still). The story is similar in France, South Korea and a handful of other nations.
It is a myth that the US is able to offer superior healthcare simply because it's privately paid for because that argument is based on the flawed premise that other nations do not offer equally good private options, often at much lower costs. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by sonicmerlin:the people who are most affected by our screwed up healthcare system are the upper lower-class and lower middle-class. Those are people who can't afford decent health-care insurance and thus are disincentivized from getting routine checkups and other low cost prevention treatment. There was a good documentary on Bill Moyer's Journal tonight about three uninsured families who fall into the lower- to lower-middle-class. A good example of how the choice was between working with no healthcare, or becoming indigent and an even greater burden on society.
That page has a link to watch the show (1 hour long).
I don't usually watch Bill Moyer's because he strikes me as so overtly liberal that I'm not attracted to his analysis (like I'm not attracted to Rush Limbaugh). But, in this case he's just airing someone else's documentary. It gives the problem a human face.
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to sonicmerlin
said by sonicmerlin:For this I will simply quote someone from Britain who posted this in another forum: The US is ahead of the rest of the world in many sectors, but medicine and healthcare is not one of them. I disagree with that comment. Since our (socially-enhanced) healthcare system is sold to the highest bidder, it all depends on where you fall in the pecking order.
If you're low- to lower-middle-class, lessor-developed countries may appear to be better. Who cares if the US has the latest high-tech equipment when you don't need it, and can't afford just the basics within the system that provided it?
But, if you have good insurance, then those things are desirable (compared to $5 office visits in Mumbai).
When people make a flat statement that it's better (or worse) than another country, I think they're talking past each other. It's both (depending on who you are). That's the problem. The vastly different healthcare outcomes in this country.
Mark |
|
