Quote :

"I believe, Hunt's argument was simply "oh yeah, well of course there are wait times in the US, because of 'natural rationing'. I mean, there isn't an infinite number of specialists, after all". Which of course is true, but when it happens in the US, it's just because you have to wait your turn. When it happens in the UK, it's because of the evil socialized government."

You are mistaken, I never even mentioned the idea. While on the topic, however, keep in mind that wait times in the U.S. are created by an artificial shortage of physicians. This is predominantly a result of overly-strict licensure laws and is thus not caused by the private sector.

Quote :

"Germany has a working and very popular public/private system, where private plans are still available and the public plan competes just fine with it and doesn't drive them out of business like you're so scared any plan in the US would"

The goal is to reign in health-care expenditures. Germany has failed in this regard.

7/20/2009 7:54:11 PM

Quote :

"The goal is to reign in health-care expenditures. Germany has failed in this regard."

compared to whom? and who says that is THE goal. another goal (of many, perhaps not you) is to have a populace with a more equitable health care system.

7/20/2009 7:57:47 PM

This has been one of Obama's primary goals - and rightly so. Our current system, alone, is unsustainable.* Simply expanding coverage only shortens the government's path to insolvency.

*http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9216/Letter-to-Ryan.1.1.shtml

7/20/2009 9:02:27 PM

Oh man.

My wife works at an unnamed multinational corporation. This morning she received a letter from her HR person-- it was a email sent from the CEO to all 140,000 of their employees urging them to oppose health reform and cap and trade.

Very professional.

Actually-- here's a hint: he's in this picture:

7/21/2009 10:31:29 AM

what did you expect the CEO to do, call them all personally?

7/21/2009 1:38:32 PM

Man, my boss tries to talk us into opposing health care reform, and I'm like, "Motherfucker, you know how much you pay me."

7/21/2009 1:40:19 PM

sounds like both of the bosses are smart men, probably why they are the boss. lol

Please let your boss know how you feel about healthcare reform Frosh. Then, if your position gets terminated it will be very ironic. "motherfuck, you know how much unemployment pays me." LOL

7/21/2009 1:43:32 PM

^
Yes if health-care is a right...why does someone else have to pay for yours?

If I have a right to proper vision, then eyedrb needs to provide it to me for free. It's my right!

7/21/2009 2:19:06 PM

which works out well for my "rights".

Its looking better that this might not pass. Thank god

7/21/2009 2:31:49 PM

You guys are paying for plenty of other shit I enjoy, so why not my health care?

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 2:38 PM. Reason : ...]

7/21/2009 2:38:38 PM

Ill pay to have you neutered. Why not?

Why cant you buy it yourself? Does your company currently provide it for you? Who pays your cell phone and car insurance? Should we provide that for you as well?

7/21/2009 2:41:53 PM

tax the uninsured damnit ... if everyone wants healthcare, shouldnt everyone pay?

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 2:45 PM. Reason : health care is not a right, its a luxery ]

7/21/2009 2:44:11 PM

Fuck you, pay me.

7/21/2009 2:48:40 PM

^the new american motto.

7/21/2009 2:49:52 PM

lol

7/21/2009 2:51:14 PM

hur hur hurrrrrrrrrr

7/21/2009 2:57:46 PM

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 3:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2009 2:58:26 PM

why does a huge amount of my tax dollars go to bombs I want nothing to do with?

same shit different problem.

7/21/2009 3:27:19 PM

seriously, fuck your predator drones

pay for my flu shot

7/21/2009 3:33:57 PM

F-22 RAPTORS OR BUST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7/21/2009 3:40:41 PM

Think of all the insurance rep jobs that will be created!

7/21/2009 4:06:48 PM

yea just think

7/21/2009 4:11:26 PM

i guess my uncle would be out of a job after his job making bomb parts is cut.

god bless honeywell

7/21/2009 5:26:53 PM

can we turn down the gov option if we don't want to pay?

7/21/2009 5:28:13 PM

i assume so.

but we're forced to pay car insurance so who knows

7/21/2009 5:31:29 PM

Quote :

"but we're forced to pay car insurance"

No we're not.

7/21/2009 5:35:01 PM

ABA Family Legal Guide
Automobiles

Quote :

"Accidents and Insurance Insurance What happens if I don't have auto insurance? You may be asked to show proof of insurance any time police stop you on the road, and be sent to court if you don't have it. Some states have minimum fines that judges must assess, and you'll have to pay court costs, too. The court will then mandate that you get the insurance you should have had in the first place. If you're a repeat offender, the fine will be higher and you may face the loss of your car and a long suspension of your driver's license. But the worst consequence, by far, is that you'll have no coverage if you're in an accident and cause damages. You could lose everything you've worked for, including your house."

http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-5b-5.html

uh

7/21/2009 5:43:59 PM

Supposedly, there will be jobs created from the F-35.

7/21/2009 5:47:42 PM

I would guess more if this health care bill is passed

but jets are sweet

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : care]

7/21/2009 5:49:46 PM

Quote :

" "

Ha

I'd rather those alligators operate under the eye of public sector, than to run rampant (as they've been doing) making billions in profits from denying their clients medical care.

7/21/2009 6:09:07 PM

Quote :

"ABA Family Legal Guide Automobiles "Accidents and Insurance Insurance What happens if I don't have auto insurance? You may be asked to show proof of insurance any time police stop you on the road, and be sent to court if you don't have it. Some states have minimum fines that judges must assess, and you'll have to pay court costs, too. The court will then mandate that you get the insurance you should have had in the first place. If you're a repeat offender, the fine will be higher and you may face the loss of your car and a long suspension of your driver's license. But the worst consequence, by far, is that you'll have no coverage if you're in an accident and cause damages. You could lose everything you've worked for, including your house" http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-5b-5.html uh"

Where does it say that everyone has to have auto insurance?
I only see it talking about people that voluntarily elect to operate vehicles on public roads.
If you don't drive on public roads, (many don't -- and anyone may choose not to,)
or if you don't drive at all, (many don't -- and anyone may choose not to,)
then you aren't required to have it.
In other words, NO ONE is required to have auto insurance.
That is about 10000000000% different from EVERY SINGLE PERSON NO MATTER WHAT being forced to have health insurance.

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 6:21 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2009 6:19:12 PM

^ haha

You can't choose not to drive in most places in NC, and most places in the country, if you want to also be able to have a job (and not rely on the government teat). Unless of course you support people living off the work of other people, then I guess it's easy to "choose" not to drive.

And how "many" people of driving age choose not to drive on public roads? 1%? .5%? Is this "many" in your naive world where driving is simply a "choice"? Even the court system recognizes the fact that driving can't be boiled down to simple choice, when it grants limited driving privileges to people convicted of drunk driving.

You should work harder on thinking about how the world actually works, instead of Willy Nilly's magical fantasy land where people can simply choose not to drive. I sort-of envy your ability to delude yourself, but it's unfortunate that you are also allowed to vote in our real world.

7/21/2009 6:34:09 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather those alligators operate under the eye of public sector, than to run rampant (as they've been doing) making billions in profits from denying their clients medical care"

Why not buy from a non-profit? If insurance were not tied to employers and individuals could purchase across state lines, there would be a host of non-profit insurance providers to choose from.

7/21/2009 7:03:47 PM

Quote :

"employers and individuals could purchase across state lines"

this seems like a simple and easy step to create more competition..

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 7:12 PM. Reason : i might just be missing something..]

7/21/2009 7:11:47 PM

Quote :

"I'd rather those alligators operate under the eye of public sector, than to run rampant (as they've been doing) making billions in profits from denying their clients medical care. "

I would rather get rid of the alligators

7/21/2009 7:19:23 PM

Quote :

"can we turn down the gov option if we don't want to pay?"

NO

havnt you learned that we got to foot the bill for the lazy?

7/21/2009 7:30:25 PM

^^ If you were free to choose a non-profit plan, why would you care if other people prefer services provided by for-profit insurance companies?

7/21/2009 7:38:56 PM

they are free loaders, they dont care

7/21/2009 7:41:17 PM

Quote :

"You should work harder on thinking about how the world actually works, instead of Willy Nilly's magical fantasy land where people can simply choose not to drive. I sort-of envy your ability to delude yourself, but it's unfortunate that you are also allowed to vote in our real world. "

Except he's right, most people can choose not to drive it just may not be the most convenient of options but they can choose not to drive. In addition to walking which I presume is what you're balking at, people can also ride bicycles, take public transport (or car pool) and can even ride motor scooters (up to 50cc?) without ever needing to purchase insurance. Any of these options would be more than adequate for anyone who lives and works within the same metro area, though some folks may have to get up a half hour earlier. Traveling between cities to work is a different matter, but no one forces people to live in one city and work in another, these are choices you make.

But you're just dodging the point which is that auto insurance is indeed required to drive a car or truck on public roads, but driving a car or truck on public roads is not mandatory, nor is there a pedestrian tax which pays into the auto insurance pool for people who don't drive. By comparison the proposed healthcare legislations will make everyone, whether or not they want it, buy and pay for health insurance.

Surely you would be upset if the government mandated that even though you walk to work every day and walk to the store that you had to buy car insurance so that the cost of insurance can go down for everyone else. Why is this different?

7/21/2009 7:46:53 PM

89% of american households own cars and pay for car insurance.

also you're not taking into account the amount of people who do not own cars because of the high price of car insurance.

also also my taxes go to many things I do not want them to go to. Just because I do not like what a portion of my tax dollars fund does not technically give me the right to complain and bitch about this when im gaining benefits from others.

7/21/2009 9:32:17 PM

health care is not a right, its a luxury

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 9:42 PM. Reason : ]

7/21/2009 9:39:55 PM

well we can disagree.

is having a fire department to put out your house a right or a luxury?

is having a free education for children a right or a luxury?

is having a reduced price for universities funded by the state a right or a luxury?

7/21/2009 9:56:19 PM

we live in a luxurious country

7/21/2009 10:03:41 PM

all of those are paid by my taxes and not available (beside's education) in the free market

c'mon, lets call out the free loaders and actually have the people who are using this to pay for it

7/21/2009 10:04:27 PM

did you go to public school?

and state I assume.

7/21/2009 10:44:45 PM

Quote :

"89% of american households own cars and pay for car insurance. also you're not taking into account the amount of people who do not own cars because of the high price of car insurance."

You're still missing the point. Even if 99.9% of people, (not even just households,) had car insurance, it is still a voluntary decision.
That's the point. Voluntary ≠ Mandatory

Quote :

"Except he's right, most people can choose not to drive it just may not be the most convenient of options but they can choose not to drive. ..... But you're just dodging the point which is that auto insurance is indeed required to drive a car or truck on public roads, but driving a car or truck on public roads is not mandatory, nor is there a pedestrian tax which pays into the auto insurance pool for people who don't drive. By comparison the proposed healthcare legislations will make everyone, whether or not they want it, buy and pay for health insurance. Surely you would be upset if the government mandated that even though you walk to work every day and walk to the store that you had to buy car insurance so that the cost of insurance can go down for everyone else. Why is this different?"

Exactly.

7/21/2009 11:24:34 PM

If everyone consumed the same ammount of healthcare it would be very easy to handle it via the gov or through the free market, but thats not the case. Education and the fire department are one size fits all institutions.

The only possible way for healthcare to be sustainable is if people pay for what they use. Our current system does not do this and neither will the current govcare plan.

7/21/2009 11:36:08 PM

Quote :

"The only possible way for healthcare to be sustainable is if people pay for what they use. Our current system does not do this and neither will the current govcare plan."

Exactly. I am not a fan of the Obama plan, but pretty much no health insurance plan can work. Millions of people pay small amounts of money into to insurance companies and the insurance companies then promise to pay for your healthcare. This works when you go to the doctor once a year and only have a co-pay of $30 while paying in over $100 dollars a month. The problem comes when someone has a major problem like a heart attack and after the surgery and other expenses are over the bill runs over $200,000. It takes a lot of people without any health problems paying in their $200 a month to cover that bill. This situation happens millions of times a year. The government will have this same problem in the long run.

7/21/2009 11:55:34 PM

Quote :

"I would rather get rid of the alligators "

Impossible. Humans are inherently imperfect.

Quote :

"Except he's right, most people can choose not to drive it just may not be the most convenient of options but they can choose not to drive. In addition to walking which I presume is what you're balking at, people can also ride bicycles, take public transport (or car pool) and can even ride motor scooters (up to 50cc?) without ever needing to purchase insurance. Any of these options would be more than adequate for anyone who lives and works within the same metro area, though some folks may have to get up a half hour earlier. Traveling between cities to work is a different matter, but no one forces people to live in one city and work in another, these are choices you make. "

Except public transportation is non-existent in most of North Carolina, and the US, where riding a bicycle is as impractical as walking. I guess you could use a scooter, but that is an asinine alternative to tell someone with a family.

Not having a car for the vast majority of Americans is in no way a practical choice, and it's extremely naive to treat or view it as such. That's like saying people could choose not to live in a house/apt/condo, and be perfectly normal, contributing members of society. It's theoretically possible, but is not something normal people treat as a rational option.

Quote :

"But you're just dodging the point which is that auto insurance is indeed required to drive a car or truck on public roads, but driving a car or truck on public roads is not mandatory, nor is there a pedestrian tax which pays into the auto insurance pool for people who don't drive. By comparison the proposed healthcare legislations will make everyone, whether or not they want it, buy and pay for health insurance. Surely you would be upset if the government mandated that even though you walk to work every day and walk to the store that you had to buy car insurance so that the cost of insurance can go down for everyone else. Why is this different? "

I'm not dodging the point, but I guess we are drifting away from the issue. The overwhelming majority of services/things that our tax dollars go towards, I will never, ever use. If you're upset about the government supporting a relatively cheap (compared to other things we spend tax dollars on) healthcare program with your tax dollars, then you may as well commit suicide, because you'll never be happy.

Tax dollars going to peoples' healthcare (which happens already... even illegal immigrants' !1!!!) is not comparable to saying everyone has to pay car insurance whether you drive or not. To put it simply, not everyone has a car, but everyone does in fact have health.

Quote :

"I am not a fan of the Obama plan, but pretty much no health insurance plan can work. Millions of people pay small amounts of money into to insurance companies and the insurance companies then promise to pay for your healthcare. This works when you go to the doctor once a year and only have a co-pay of $30 while paying in over $100 dollars a month. The problem comes when someone has a major problem like a heart attack and after the surgery and other expenses are over the bill runs over $200,000. It takes a lot of people without any health problems paying in their $200 a month to cover that bill. This situation happens millions of times a year. The government will have this same problem in the long run."

I think the other, bigger problem is that the health insurance companies rake in profits in the billions, while also denying people coverage or procedures. It is easy to find reports of doctors who routinely submit claims 2x, because they know certain things are automatically rejected the first time. I understand trying to run a sustainable system, but the line the companies have drawn is far too biased towards the companies. A nationwide system where there is no denial of claims for the purpose of keeping high profit margins forces the other companies to be more reasonable in their outlays.



[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 1:24 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 1:15:35 AM

^^^ Education isn't one size fits all. Disabled kids? Troubled kids? Gifted kids?

And neither is the fire dept. Brick houses v. wooden houses. Houses a block away from the fire house v. 15 miles from it.

You're basically making an argument against any and all types of insurance.

Quote :

"But you're just dodging the point which is that auto insurance is indeed required to drive a car or truck on public roads, but driving a car or truck on public roads is not mandatory, nor is there a pedestrian tax which pays into the auto insurance pool for people who don't drive. By comparison the proposed healthcare legislations will make everyone, whether or not they want it, buy and pay for health insurance."

This is such a minute and academic distinction that it'd be ridiculous to actually allow it to impact health policy one way or another.

[Edited on July 22, 2009 at 1:24 AM. Reason : ]

7/22/2009 1:21:54 AM