Well The Big Day Has Arrived

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

jeff f said:
i am gonna call bullshit on this one. our infant mortality stems mainly from inner city crack babies and such. while all coutries have inner city problems i dont believe they have the level of hard drug use. i read data on this before and the numbers for this are totally scewed. if i have time i might look for the study so i can give more accurate information.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration says about 100k unborn babies are exposed to drugs (including alcohol and nicotine) each year. This makes up 0.25% of babies. Even if every single one of those babies died, that wouldn't explain the discrepancy.

Attempt to blame shitty health care system on black people - fail

according to the non-partisan CBO (as apposed to Rush Limbaugh or where ever you're getting your info):

Federal and state initiatives to lower infant mortality rates have focused on strategies to reduce financial barriers that limit access to prenatal care and on strategies to expand the supply of prenatal care services available to poor pregnant women. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these and other policies to reduce low birthweight and infant mortality are the focus of considerable debate. Recent expansions of the Medicaid program are enabling more low-income children and pregnant women to obtain the health care that they need. Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply. Hence, federal programs that provide direct support for maternal and child health services and primary care for low-income populations are also important. Some policy researchers believe, moreover, that the scope of strategies to reduce infant mortality should be broadened from a relatively narrow focus on pregnancy care to the more general issue of how to improve the health status of poor women and their families.

High infant mortality rates aren't due to "drug addicted intercity" mothers. It's due to people not being able to afford proper prenatal health care. It is directly related to socio-economic conditions, not black people smoking crack. (although yes, smoking crack is bad for babies too)

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
No, no, Jeff.

He has a point. We do tolerate a significant amount of Socialism in this country.

Roads are Constitutional. That Socialism is tolerated.

But the fire department is local; community level. The Federal government has no say there. If it were to start dictating firefighting standards the Socialism would be nationalized.

The military is Constitutional. Again, that Socialism is tolerated.

But when the Federal government nationalizes programs that were never intended to be Federal issues according to the Constitution; like education, Social Security, and health care....

Who here is familiar with the term National Socialism, also known as Proggie paradise? Because that's where we are headed if we don't put a stop to this.

What makes our socialized national highway system more "constitutional" than socialized health insurance?

Centralized power is a dangerous thing.

It can be. Interesting point though. I haven't considered that aspect of it.

Would you be more comfortable with socialized/privatized health insurance being a states rights issue, letting states decide for themselves?

Oh, and Mexico has Universal Health Care, but the hospitals in Juarez are not full of Americans looking for quality care.

But the hospitals in El Paso? Full of illegal aliens downloading anchor babies.

And the trauma cases from the open war between the drug cartels and law enforcement cross the border to access the American hospitals.

Kind of makes you wonder why they would choose our shitty health care system over their own.

Ok, well I'd disagree with the idea that Mexico has bad health care because it's socialized. I'd argue that it has more to do with it being Mexico. But that's beside the point.

As I've already said, people do not come to American doctors because of our health insurance system. As I've said, I agree with allowing for profit medical practices and for profit medical R&D despite the high costs. I think the benefits are worth it at the moment.

For profit health insurance has nothing to do with the quality of American doctors. All this for profit insurance does is add cost on to our already expensive health care system. The common practice of health insurance companies denying sick people health care in order to gain higher profits is completely immoral. A corporation's right to profit should end where my life begins.

I still have yet to see a valid reason why an optional pay-in (no free ride, pay to get the insurance) system is going to be the end of the world.

Johnnyorganic · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
What makes our socialized national highway system more "constitutional" than socialized health insurance?

The Constitution.

See the 10th Amendment

Dan Kone said:
It can be. Interesting point though. I haven't considered that aspect of it.

Would you be more comfortable with socialized/privatized health insurance being a states rights issue, letting states decide for themselves?

I would be perfectly fine with that. That is what the founders envisioned.

Dan Kone said:
Ok, well I'd disagree with the idea that Mexico has bad health care because it's socialized. I'd argue that it has more to do with it being Mexico. But that's beside the point.

Do I sense a racial component in that statement?

Dan Kone said:
As I've already said, people do not come to American doctors because of our health insurance system. As I've said, I agree with allowing for profit medical practices and for profit medical R&D despite the high costs. I think the benefits are worth it at the moment.

For profit health insurance has nothing to do with the quality of American doctors. All this for profit insurance does is add cost on to our already expensive health care system. The common practice of health insurance companies denying sick people health care in order to gain higher profits is completely immoral. A corporation's right to profit should end where my life begins.

I still have yet to see a valid reason why an optional pay-in (no free ride, pay to get the insurance) system is going to be the end of the world.

So if someone refuses to pay, gets fined for having no insurance. But the fine is a fraction the cost of insurance....

Then gets sick....

And can sign up for insurance because preconditions are not considered....

How does that bring the cost of health insurance down?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

doc111 · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
Optional socialized health insurance doesn't reduce quality. If anything it would increase quality. With our current system there is a profit motivation for denying sick people access to treatment. Because of the current system we have very little access to preventative care.

America has a terrible infant mortality rate and a lower life expectancy than most countries with socialized insurance. A pregnant mother in a country with socialized medicine doesn't have to consider cost before deciding to get a check up.

We have that now. Currently we ration based off of cost. Instead of giving priority to people who need immediate treatment, we give priority to those who can afford it. I think giving treatment to those in immediate need instead of those who can afford it is a good idea.

Medicare spends two tenths of a penny for every dollar spent on fraud. I'd rather focus on the other 99.98% of the problem rather than the 0.02%.

Your personal philosophy on government is more important than people dying because they can't afford to see a doctor? I don't think we can afford to be that decadent. We should be focusing on practical realities rather than government theory.

I

Blue dog democrats weren't the only ones who blocked it. Republicans gave near unanimous opposition. It was the blue dog democrats who are as conservative as your average republican in combination with republicans.

Basically the democrats had a solution that would reduce health care costs. Conservatives with no plan that would produce the same result all apposed affordable health care because it contradicted with their decadent political philosophy. Conservatives told America that their crusade to fight socialism was more important than the lives and futures of Americans.

You should be. That is ridiculous logic. You drive on socialist roads, if there is a fire the socialist fire department puts it out. If we are attacked our socialized armed forces defend us.

Should we get rid of fire departments and roads because they are socialism? This random fear of socialism is absurd.

People who need immediate, emergent care in this country get it! I'm so sick of you libs acting like we are simply letting gunshot and stabbing victims die on the curb outside the E.R. for lack of ability to pay! There are laws in almost every state which prevent this from happening. Almost every hospital will see emergency cases regardless of ability to pay. I spent over 15 years hauling these folks into the E.R. and never once saw someone turned away. Thousands of patients, most of which had no insurance (My station was in a pretty rough inner city neighborhood) and not one ever was turned away. Throwing roads and the military up as examples of socialism is a weak attempt to discredit those who are against socialized medicine. Nobody I know is saying we should get rid of every socialist program. We have plenty of socialist programs in this country, we don't need to go adding another one, that by even the most modest estimates, will add trillions to the debt and make up about 1/5th of the economy! Government has a specific function, healthcare shouldn't be one of them IMO. Nothing you can say is going to change that. I am in my 40's and have been in the real world for a long time now. I've been to some of these socialist countries, and I've even worked in some of their hospitals, side by side with their medics. It is true that there are some things they do well. There are many other things that they don't do so well. I don't want our government screwing things up worse than they already are and I'm afraid, and I'm not alone, that is where we are headed. Should something be done? Absolutely, but this steaming pile of legislation is not the answer! Unfortunately it'll take a couple of decades to really figure that out and by then the progressives and liberals will find some way to spin it into a positive. :cuss:

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
The Constitution.

See the 10th Amendment

What about the 10th ammendment makes the national highway system legal but socialized health insurance illegal? Is there some part of the constitution that authorizes highways but not medical insurance?

Do I sense a racial component in that statement?

You sense a lack of government in Mexico thing. They are facing a potential overthrow of the government. Not surprising their social services do not function properly under these conditions.

So if someone refuses to pay, gets fined for having no insurance. But the fine is a fraction the cost of insurance....

Then gets sick....

And can sign up for insurance because preconditions are not considered....

That is a very good point. A solid argument against the health care law we just past.

How does that bring the cost of health insurance down?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

That can happen now. What about allowing people to be able to buy into a public health insurance system makes that worse?

Taking the profits out of health insurance certainly makes it cheaper. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to deny sick people coverage. That is immoral.

doc111 · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
What about the 10th ammendment makes the national highway system legal but socialized health insurance illegal? Is there some part of the constitution that authorizes highways but not medical insurance?

You sense a lack of government in Mexico thing. They are facing a potential overthrow of the government. Not surprising their social services do not function properly under these conditions.

That is a very good point. A solid argument against the health care law we just past.

That can happen now. What about allowing people to be able to buy into a public health insurance system makes that worse?

Taking the profits out of health insurance certainly makes it cheaper. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to deny sick people coverage. That is immoral.

A public option will more than likely bankrupt the insurance companies. We pay higher prices in part because of hospitals caring for people with no insurance. A large part would have to do with all the hoops that modern day facilities in this country have to jump through...........have you been to a new, private hospital recently? I was in one not long ago that has a freakin' waterfall and a creek complete with koi and little water plants and flowers. It was heavenly and it was expensive! Every room has flat screen tv's and made to order meals 24/7 with a kitchen overseen by chefs, much like a 5 star hotel! Out of curiosity, I did a little digging and within an hour drive of where I live there are already 2 more facilities with similar price tags which are operating and at least 7 more on the drawing board! It's prevalent and it's in part what's driving the cost. Vexatious litigation and frivilous lawsuits are having taking their toll. There is no one thing that is driving cost so it will take an enormous effort and will more than likely cost jobs or benefits and pay will suffer. Cost my friend, cost. ;-)

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

doc111 said:
People who need immediate, emergent care in this country get it! I'm so sick of you libs acting like we are simply letting gunshot and stabbing victims die on the curb outside the E.R. for lack of ability to pay! There are laws in almost every state which prevent this from happening. Almost every hospital will see emergency cases regardless of ability to pay.

I never said anything even similar to that. I was speaking of non-urgent care. Prenatal care is not emergency care. Neither is cancer screening. If we detect cancer early or a problem with an unborn baby, we are more likely to save lives and money in the long run.

Throwing roads and the military up as examples of socialism is a weak attempt to discredit those who are against socialized medicine.

No, actually it's a strong argument against people who say they are against all forms of socialism because it's socialism. That is what you did.

Nobody I know is saying we should get rid of every socialist program.

but you just said;

I do have a problem with socialism just because it is socialism and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

So which is it? Is all socialism evil or not?

We have plenty of socialist programs in this country, we don't need to go adding another one, that by even the most modest estimates, will add trillions to the debt and make up about 1/5th of the economy!

Again, no one is talking about bringing full socialized medicine to the US. We are talking about an optional health insurance program that you have to buy into. Not free unlimited health care for everyone.

Government has a specific function, healthcare shouldn't be one of them IMO. Nothing you can say is going to change that. I am in my 40's and have been in the real world for a long time now. I've been to some of these socialist countries, and I've even worked in some of their hospitals, side by side with their medics. It is true that there are some things they do well.

Hard to believe considering you don't seem to understand the difference between having the option to buy into a public health insurance policy and socialized medicine. This should be pretty easy to understand. I'm not using big words.

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

doc111 said:
A public option will more than likely bankrupt the insurance companies.

Because a public option would provide either a superior service, have a lower cost, or both. I don't see what the problem is, either way we get an improvement over what we have now. What's the big deal? Why is it so important that people profit off of health insurance? We should protect their profits at our own expense?

To say that we shouldn't even have the option to buy cheaper public health insurance because it would interfere with profits of health insurance is not a strong argument. Sorry but their right to profit ends where American lives begin.

We pay higher prices in part because of hospitals caring for people with no insurance.

The next sentence there should read because these non-insured people have no access to non-emergency care and it's considerably more expensive to treat these people in an ER than a doctors office.

If we got these people on public insurance, that would lower your health care costs.

Vexatious litigation and frivilous lawsuits are having taking their toll.

Sure that is what health insurance companies want us to believe but the truth is that is a very small portion of our health insurance costs. The CBO estimates it at less than 2% I believe.

There is no one thing that is driving cost so it will take an enormous effort and will more than likely cost jobs or benefits and pay will suffer. Cost my friend, cost.

And we can lower costs if we had the option of buying public health insurance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if health insurance companies are making 20-30% profits, then we could save a considerable amount of money by allowing the option of having non-profit health insurance.

doc111 · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
I never said anything even similar to that. I was speaking of non-urgent care. Prenatal care is not emergency care. Neither is cancer screening. If we detect cancer early or a problem with an unborn baby, we are more likely to save lives and money in the long run.

No, actually it's a strong argument against people who say they are against all forms of socialism because it's socialism. That is what you did.

but you just said;

So which is it? Is all socialism evil or not?

Again, no one is talking about bringing full socialized medicine to the US. We are talking about an optional health insurance program that you have to buy into. Not free unlimited health care for everyone.

Hard to believe considering you don't seem to understand the difference between having the option to buy into a public health insurance policy and socialized medicine. This should be pretty easy to understand. I'm not using big words.

Ok, I challenge you to show me anywhere that I have ever said that all forms of socialism are bad. Both extremes of government are equally doomed to failure. Prenatal care usually consists of women taking Prenatal vitamins, something that is actually a very cheap and effective form of prenatal care. Other than that, my wife who was high risk pregnancy for reasons I won't go into basically had 2 ultrasounds and they did virtually nothing for her................and we went to a top OB/Gyn and have top notch insurance. If at risk women want free/govt. prenatal care which is probably damn near as good as what my wife received there are at least a dozen organizations in the nearest major municipal area that will gladly help women out. The problem is you actually have to go to them. Some women in this wonderfully narcissistic society of ours can't be bothered to take the time to visit the free clinic. I can find even more organizations both government and private charitable organizations who will give a pap smear or a mammogram to any woman who shows up and asks. Again, narcissism! My insurance plans and most of the people I know already get and have been getting free or extremely cheap preventive care. I get a flu shot every year. My insurance foots the bill. I don't want the government telling me I HAVE to get a flu shot. The same as I don't think the government should be able to tell me I have to wear a helmet or seatbelt. I'm harming noone with my risky behavior yet they think they "know" what's in my best interest. You see where this is going. I've been around long enough to see the writing on the wall and I don't like the color of the spray paint. :sad:

doc111 · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
Because a public option would provide either a superior service, have a lower cost, or both. I don't see what the problem is, either way we get an improvement over what we have now. What's the big deal? Why is it so important that people profit off of health insurance? We should protect their profits at our own expense?

To say that we shouldn't even have the option to buy cheaper public health insurance because it would interfere with profits of health insurance is not a strong argument. Sorry but their right to profit ends where American lives begin.

The next sentence there should read because these non-insured people have no access to non-emergency care and it's considerably more expensive to treat these people in an ER than a doctors office.

If we got these people on public insurance, that would lower your health care costs.

Sure that is what health insurance companies want us to believe but the truth is that is a very small portion of our health insurance costs. The CBO estimates it at less than 2% I believe.

And we can lower costs if we had the option of buying public health insurance. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if health insurance companies are making 20-30% profits, then we could save a considerable amount of money by allowing the option of having non-profit health insurance.

Bro this back and forth has been fun but it's getting old. That's the problem, you don't get it. :wall:

I doubt much about the government option would be superior except cost and the regulations that the government could sidestep because, well, they're the government! Governments never do bad stuff. There is no possibility of an individual slipping in under the radar given the proper atmosphere for his brand of tyranny to flourish. <sarcasm off>

It's too much power. I am for limiting government, not growing it and I think our number one concern with government as an intelligent populace should be keeping the size in check. :leaf:

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

doc111 said:
Ok, I challenge you to show me anywhere that I have ever said that all forms of socialism are bad.

I do have a problem with socialism just because it is socialism and I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Both extremes of government are equally doomed to failure.

I agree.

I don't want the government telling me I HAVE to get a flu shot.

You sound like you're just parroting what you've heard conservatives say on TV rather than having any free thought.

No one is suggesting that we should force people to get flu shots.

You really don't seem to have any understand of what this is really about at all. How does having the option of public health insurance = forced government flu shots? That's insane.

I'm harming noone with my risky behavior yet they think they "know" what's in my best interest. You see where this is going. I've been around long enough to see the writing on the wall and I don't like the color of the spray paint.

Yeah, I see where this is going. Someone has put a bunch of crap in your head to make you think that some how optional public health insurance = the government controlling every aspect of your like. That is total bullshit.

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

doc111 said:
Bro this back and forth has been fun but it's getting old. That's the problem, you don't get it.

Let me guess.. The problem is that socialism is evil?

I doubt much about the government option would be superior except cost and the regulations that the government could sidestep because, well, they're the government!

And they wouldn't be making a 20-30% profit. Also they could collectively bargain. That is pretty key. But don't let me interrupt your crazy rant on how government is taking over you life.

Governments never do bad stuff. There is no possibility of an individual slipping in under the radar given the proper atmosphere for his brand of tyranny to flourish. <sarcasm off>

So let me get this strait. Cheaper optional public health insurance = zomg! tyranny! Yeah. That's sound logic.

Johnnyorganic · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
What about the 10th ammendment makes the national highway system legal but socialized health insurance illegal? Is there some part of the constitution that authorizes highways but not medical insurance?

Section 8 authorizes the Federal government to establish Post Offices and Post roads. That's transportation.

Amendment 10 states that any power not delegated to the US by the Constitution is the responsibility of the states, or the people.

You seem like a pretty sharp guy so I'm surprised to be giving you a civics lesson.

Dan Kone said:
You sense a lack of government in Mexico thing. They are facing a potential overthrow of the government. Not surprising their social services do not function properly under these conditions.

I knew exactly what you were saying.

That was a little jab a Liberal hypersensitivity over race. And the funny way the outrage only seems to flow in one direction.

Congressman-elect Alan West gets called an "Oreo cookie," or an "Uncle Tom," or a "House Ni@@er" by angry Progressives and Conservatives brush it off.

Call Marco Rubio a 'coconut' and we just laugh at the stupidity of such a comment.

But portray Obama as Curious George or a witch doctor and all hell breaks loose.

Suddenly the Teabaggers, or the Republican party, or Conservatives in general; are racists.

It's a double-standard.

Dan Kone said:
That is a very good point. A solid argument against the health care law we just past.

Okay....

Dan Kone said:
That can happen now. What about allowing people to be able to buy into a public health insurance system makes that worse?

Taking the profits out of health insurance certainly makes it cheaper. There shouldn't be a financial incentive to deny sick people coverage. That is immoral.

A public health insurance scheme can run at a loss indefinitely. The private sector cannot compete with that. And government does not like competition.

It would ultimately result in the vast majority of Americans dropping their private insurance and having no other choice but the Public option.

Public Education is a great example. How many parents would place their children in private school if they could swing it financially?

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
A public health insurance scheme can run at a loss indefinitely. The private sector cannot compete with that. And government does not like competition.

It would ultimately result in the vast majority of Americans dropping their private insurance and having no other choice but the Public option.

Medicare advantage stays an option. Why would this be any different?

If private insurance to the majority became a thing of the past, I'd be ok with that. I don't see why the money middle man between us and our doctors needs to make a profit.

Public Education is a great example. How many parents would place their children in private school if they could swing it financially?

Most of them. But they can't afford it. Which is the point right? I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Johnnyorganic · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
Medicare advantage stays an option. Why would this be any different?

If private insurance to the majority became a thing of the past, I'd be ok with that. I don't see why the money middle man between us and our doctors needs to make a profit.

Most of them. But they can't afford it. Which is the point right? I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Apples and oranges. Medicare targets one specific sector of the medical industry - old farts. Yet the medical industry at large applies to everyone. Enact a public option and private health insurance will suffer the same fate as private education: something for the affluent and those dedicated to it regardless of the sacrifice.

Everyone else will be subject to the Public Option sooner or later. The efficiency of the I.R.S with the customer service of the driver's license bureau.

My point is Public Education is hostile to competition. Teachers unions oppose any alternative to Public Schools.

Public Education sucks up so many resources there is little left for other options. And public education is shitty. Yet it is a sacred cow.

If the dollars spent per student by each state were vouchered to parents to do with as they would in regards to education, the private schools would flourish and the public schools would be forced to improve due to the competition.

But the teacher's unions and Democratic elected officials would not stand for that.

As a result, Public Education continues to suck up all the oxygen in the room while demanding more funding yet producing poor results.

Dan Kone · Nov 10, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
Apples and oranges. Medicare targets one specific sector of the medical industry - old farts. Yet the medical industry at large applies to everyone.

Except I wasn't making that direct comparison. I was saying that private health insurance still competes with medicare in the form of medicare advantage. So why would a public option available to everyone be any different?

Enact a public option and private health insurance will suffer the same fate as private education: something for the affluent and those dedicated to it regardless of the sacrifice.

Is that so bad? If there is affordable health care that everyone has access to then that is a win as far as I'm concerned. If rich people want to buy extra coverage, it's their money. I've got no problem with that.

Everyone else will be subject to the Public Option sooner or later. The efficiency of the I.R.S with the customer service of the driver's license bureau.

Great. I'd rather deal with a DMV worker than a claims adjuster who is paid to deny me access to medical care. I'll take it.

My point is Public Education is hostile to competition. Teachers unions oppose any alternative to Public Schools.

Actually they appose public funding being diverted from public schools to private schools. I don't think the teachers union opposes the general concept of access to private schools.

That problem wouldn't exist with public health insurance since it is a policy you have to pay into, not a free service provided through taxes. A voucher system would be impossible.

Public Education sucks up so many resources there is little left for other options. And public education is shitty. Yet it is a sacred cow.

For a damn good reason. The fact that public education is shitty is a reason to make it better, not get rid of it. We can't have education available to only those who can afford it. Same goes for health insurance in my opinion.

If the dollars spent per student by each state were vouchered to parents to do with as they would in regards to education, the private schools would flourish and the public schools would be forced to improve due to the competition.

And many of them would be forced to close down, denying kids access to education.

Johnnyorganic · Nov 10, 2010

Dan Kone said:
Except I wasn't making that direct comparison. I was saying that private health insurance still competes with medicare in the form of medicare advantage. So why would a public option available to everyone be any different?

Because Medicare was never meant to be health insurance per se, though it morphed into that. The supplemental insurance makes up the difference between Medicare and the actual cost of health care, which is ample.

Dan Kone said:
Is that so bad? If there is affordable health care that everyone has access to then that is a win as far as I'm concerned. If rich people want to buy extra coverage, it's their money. I've got no problem with that.

Not extra coverage, alternative coverage. School kids don't go to both public school and private school. It's one or the other.

Based on the Medicare precedent, regular folks will have to buy supplemental insurance, too.

Or more likely, like public education; private health insurance will be reserved for those with the means or the sheer will.

Dan Kone said:
Great. I'd rather deal with a DMV worker than a claims adjuster who is paid to deny me access to medical care. I'll take it.

Your argument is based on a false premise.

Dan Kone said:
Actually they appose public funding being diverted from public schools to private schools. I don't think the teachers union opposes the general concept of access to private schools.

Public school funding is based on headcount. It's not hard to figure out why the unions are hostile to alternatives.

Dan Kone said:
That problem wouldn't exist with public health insurance since it is a policy you have to pay into, not a free service provided through taxes. A voucher system would be impossible.

You mean forced to pay into.

And why would not a voucher system work if the ultimate goal is to produce smarter kids?

Oh right, that's not the goal.

The goal is full employment for incompetent public school teachers and administrators.

Dan Kone said:
For a damn good reason. The fact that public education is shitty is a reason to make it better, not get rid of it. We can't have education available to only those who can afford it. Same goes for health insurance in my opinion.

Nope. Throwing money at the problem has never solved it. It's time to consider other options.

Dan Kone said:
And many of them would be forced to close down, denying kids access to education.

Competition would force them to streamline, and yes some would close. The lousy ones.

But kids would not be denied anything because their parents would be empowered to send them to any school they chose thanks to vouchers.

jeff f · Nov 10, 2010

doc111 said:
Bro this back and forth has been fun but it's getting old. That's the problem, you don't get it. I doubt much about the government option would be superior except cost and the regulations that the government could sidestep because, well, they're the government! Governments never do bad stuff. There is no possibility of an individual slipping in under the radar given the proper atmosphere for his brand of tyranny to flourish. <sarcasm off>

It's too much power. I am for limiting government, not growing it and I think our number one concern with government as an intelligent populace should be keeping the size in check.

great series of posts there doc. i have been in many govt run hospitals. and many for profits. no comparison. you hit the nail on the head and some just will never get it.

most people throughout their lifetime are only exposed to one or two hospitals.

when your in the military it seems like you see a thousand of them.

NoDrama · Nov 11, 2010

Johnnyorganic said:
So if someone refuses to pay, gets fined for having no insurance. But the fine is a fraction the cost of insurance....

Then gets sick....

And can sign up for insurance because preconditions are not considered....

How does that bring the cost of health insurance down?

Oh yeah, it doesn't.

This is actually my plan should I get sick or hurt.

doc111 · Nov 11, 2010

Dan Kone said:
I agree.

You sound like you're just parroting what you've heard conservatives say on TV rather than having any free thought.

No one is suggesting that we should force people to get flu shots.

You really don't seem to have any understand of what this is really about at all. How does having the option of public health insurance = forced government flu shots? That's insane.

Yeah, I see where this is going. Someone has put a bunch of crap in your head to make you think that some how optional public health insurance = the government controlling every aspect of your like. That is total bullshit.

OK, 2 more points I want to address and then I'm done with this thread. First off, you took a quote of mine out of context. I never said all socialist programs were bad. I was being sarcastic in that post but good job for finding a post of mine where I (sarcastically) bash all socialism. :clap:

The final thing I want to respond to is this notion that "someone has put a bunch of crap in my head". Well sir, I don't live in a bubble, so have some of my views been influenced by people smarter than me who think in a similar way? I'm not ashamed to say of course! I don't watch much tv and I especially rarely watch cable or mainstream news. I've opposed govt. run healthcare in this country since the Clintons were trying to push it on us back in the 90's. Nobody does my thinking for me. My views are the sum total of my education and experiences, not that I owe you any explanation but I read a lot as well. Does that make me a mindless drone? Perhaps, but I wouldn't change a thing. ;-)

You can respond if you like but I'm done with this thread. I've explained in pretty plain english why I feel the way I feel and I've put up a number of examples why as well as a few links to back up my position. We've come full circle and I don't enjoy chasing my tail so thank you for the riveting debate and I look forward to many more in the future. Happy growing all! :weed:

Well The Big Day Has Arrived

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member