Comments for Conservatives: 'Public Health Care Option Is The Best, But You Can't Have It' »
Posted By bluetexasvalley 6 months, 3 weeks ago in Political NewsThe conservative mantra, for as far back as anyone can recall, is that the government can do no right, and the private sector can do no wrong, thanks to market principles of competition. "Government isn't the solution to our problem - Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan.
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 136
-
95%
bluetexasvalley6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
Well, that notion has been destroyed when it comes to health insurance.
The leading argument from conservative Republicans and Democrats is that if there is a public option included in any health insurance reform package, it will doom the private industry because it simply will not be able to compete with the government-managed plan.-
89%
jordan116 months, 3 weeks ago
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
89%
Candida6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
bluetexasvalley: "The leading argument from conservative Republicans and Democrats is that if there is a public option included in any health insurance reform package, it will doom the private industry because it simply will not be able to compete with the government-managed plan."
Reply
This argument is even funnier when you consider to whom the government would offer insurance: primarily to those who can't afford or are unable to qualify for private insurance. In other words, the government would insure most of the "uninsurable" and the private sector is still worried that it would not be able to compete. -
100%
cowboygrandpa6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
btv:
Reply
FTA
"MCCONNELL: Yeah.
WALLACE: ... to compete against private insurance options. Is there any public plan, as just one of a series of -- on the menu, that you could support?
MCCONNELL: Well, that would mean a government plan that would inevitably put the government between you and your doctor, and there would be no more private insurance.
WALLACE: Why?
MCCONNELL: Because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option.
Whoa! Stop the presses! The Republican leader not only admits that the government can offer a better health insurance option than private industry, but that the principles of competition will go out the window -- that private insurance companies won't do everything they can to offer Americans the best and least inexpensive insurance possible? What happened to private insurance companies being able to do everything better and cheaper than the government? Apparently, according to the Republican leader, they cannot.
Like I said, conservative Democrats are saying the same. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) has been all over the place, but at one point said a public option "would be too attractive and would hurt the private insurance plans.""
Quite obviously those who prefer privatised health plans do so because they think sickness and the overriding fear of death is highly profitable.
What does that say about those people ??? That money is more important to them, than the life God gives everyone ???
That only some deserve the benefits of health care while others deserve to die because they are not wealthy enough to afford a doctors care ??
Hmmmmmmmmmmm ???? I just wonder what God thinks of all these wonderfully greedy people who make up lies to sanitize their wretched love of money over mankind.
One hint for them.
All your money won't buy your way out of hell, but it sure might pay for your entry.
-
-
74%
jordan116 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am so sick and tired of CONS!!! And I'm sick and tired of democrats trying to kiss their asses! CONS have done NOTHING to address the needs of Americans who pay their GD salaries. All they've done is take the bulk of MILLIONS distributed as pay offs by the insurance industry, while they themselves wallow in the pork afforded them by Americans, including LIFETIME MEDICAL BENEFITS! They're the most obscene bunch of bastards I've ever seen in my lifetime, and their constituents are the stupidest lot of morons on this planet!
Reply
Fear, lies, and a conglomeration of BULL SH*T; that's what CONS offer this country. They don't have ONE idea of their own, and sat around for twelve YEARS doing NOTHING, and since 2006 filibustered every GD bill submitted by democrats or independents. NOW, they're going to nit pick, lie about, and distort this health bill. They have NOTHING of their own. Democrats have the votes. They need to JUST DO IT!-
100%
Eagle_Eye6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
())()()()()())()()()()() (Eagle Applauding!)
Reply -
-
-
85%
Will13136 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny France is rated the #1 health care SYSTEM in the world. and they seem to enjoy a fairly high standard of living..
Reply
I have a friend that is a medical headhunter.. he cannot get doctors from Canada to take a job in America.. .UNLESS they wish to learn a special skill.. such as TRAUMA CARE.. they come here to learn how to set up that type of unit.. then return to Canada..-
-
-
-
90%
CaptainLucid6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey automan, you got called out. In poker you would show your cards and it would be settled. Republicanism is at the end you don't show your cards, you just declare yourself the winner and take the money. Do you intend to show your cards? Didn't think so.
Reply
-
-
29%
Hhussk6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
funny France is rated the #1 health care SYSTEM in the world. and they seem to enjoy a fairly high standard of living..
Reply
You should know that France's system has lead to heavy tax increases. France is currently in the process of adopting US style health matinence organization tactics. In other words, the French system is going broke.-
100%
quackpot6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have you checked the recent increases in the cost of your health care package? Most employers are finding that the increases are so huge that they would be bankrupt if they did not pass a substantial portion of the package onto the employee.
Reply-
67%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Have you checked the recent increases in the cost of your health care package? Most employers are finding that the increases are so huge that they would be bankrupt if they did not pass a substantial portion of the package onto the employee."
Reply
--You're asking cons to do math AND to think critically at the same time? These people would think their lives were better if they paid no "taxes" but their expenses were much higher--because da gubmint is eeee-ville. ;-0 -
-
Neutral
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"How does adding an entirely new layer of government bureaucracy make health care less expensive? Before you answer, you should know that health care inflation affects medicare more so than private health care."
Reply
--You guys really have your talking points down. Let's see...You spit out buzzwords like bureacracy (whooooo...that's even sorta tough to pronounce so it *must* be baaaaaadd), mention France or Canada and how everybody has to wait for years to have open heart surgery...blah blah..., talk about how "everybody" wants to come here because our system is so flawless (as if no one knows Americans are also seeking medical treatments abroad). Stop pretending you don't know WE ALREADY HAVE "socialized medicine" that works perfectly well. YOUR TAX DOLLARS subsidize the healthcare of YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS and million of Federal government employees. It would be simply a matter of expanding that same type of coverage to Americans who want it. How do you figure you can trick anyone into believing "more layers of bureacuracy" are going to come out of anything. And are you going to try to argue that current system we have is free of bureacracy? I DARE you to argue that.
-
-
-
-
100%
Will13136 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
actually i'll post it for you.. France # 1.. USA # 37.. just ahead of Cuba..
Reply
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.
That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.
----------
SAYS NOTHING OF THEM GOING BROKE.. AND THEIR COST IS WAY LESS THAN OURS.. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT..-
100%
Will13136 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28...
Reply
THE LINK.. -
25%
Georgia506 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First we need to examine how each country measures live births.
Reply
OH. MY BAD. SORRY TO HAVE TO BREAK IT TO YOU. YOU SEE, NOT ALL COUNTRIES MEASURE LIVE BIRTHS THE SAME WAY.
Get back to us AFTER you have reviewed the metrics involved. Here's an example of how you LIARS distort the issue: "Canada's health care system produces a lower mortality rate than the US health care system." Ever heard that brazen lie? The stat APPEARS to be true because it includes deaths caused by homicides and suicides which have NOTHING to do with the delivery of health care. Remove those two stats, and the US system is clearly superior to Canada's.
By the way, the same faux ranking of nations' health care systems you cite above, not having been taught the value of independent or parallel thought processes, has Finland's system ranked below Columbia's.
You need life-saving surgery. Two options: Finland or Columbia.
Any lib-tards on the forum care to admit they'd fly to Columbia over Finland? Or for that matter, FRANCE OVER THE U.S. ?????????
Wow. That was way too easy. Where's a sustainable argument when you want to destroy one ?
-
-
-
-
95%
alakazam6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay...so they won't do it the right way?
Reply
If the fact's are in and they won't make the change because it will cost them personally they are to a man corrupt. Time to raise Hell people. We need to pull the plug on K-Street yesterday.
Our Representatives should represent the People. Corporate interest should be far down the list of Fiddles and Industry should have no special status under any circumstance.
Nope...Equal under the Law.
Seems I read that somewhere.-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
100%
TheRealizer6 months, 3 weeks ago
-
93%
willottica-246 months, 3 weeks ago
-
90%
willottica-246 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Imagine, if you will, a system where a reasonable number of people were represented by a politician who was actually accountable.
Reply
I imagine that with only 500-700 voters for a particular position, it would be easy to inform all of the voters about the true nature of a candidate, and mass media would not be able to obscure the message by who has the most money for advertising. (500-1000 voters can be easily reached via telephone or mail).
So, at the first level, 500-1000 voters elect a person to represent their best interests. Then the next level is done similarly. 500-1000 of those elected officials choose a representative to meet the best interests of those they represent. Who in turn choose representatives.
If the people at the bottom are unhappy, they can easily oust the next level up. The next level up can in turn easily oust the level above them, and they had better if that character is doing things that will make the people at the bottom unhappy.
By keeping the number of constituents per representative down, it is possible to make them accountable for their decisions (including the decision to select an idiot). This seems like it might work much better than the current method whereby 1,000,000 voters vote for a single person, and even if 1000 of them know him personally and KNOW this guy is a schmuck, they only represent .1% of the voters, and they have an extremely hard time ousting him, since he can likely use propaganda to convince many of the other 999,000 that he's the one to vote for (they don't know him personally).
I believe this is the point of the electoral college (as set forth in the US constitution). It's not so much that individual voters can't be trusted, it's that statistically, so many of them will be under or misinformed that the informed ones will not be able to make a difference. With the current system, politicking is reduced to meaningless soundbytes calculated to sway the masses of UNinformed voters (because it's well known that they far outnumber the informed voters). The presidential election "pretends" to use the electoral college, but instead of voting for electors, they vote for representatives that have promised to vote a certain way. It undermines the theory completely.
Does anyone even know which elector they voted for in the last election?-
-
100%
Candida6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica-24,
Reply
Do you know that what you are advocating was called "democratic centralism," and it was the official way the communist party was supposed to operate in the communist countries. Of course it didn't quite work that way in practice because the elections were rigged and there was a lot of intimidation, but that was the theory. -
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
-
86%
willottica-246 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I realize I'm going on about this, but it's not a simple concept.
Reply
When you vote for a Senator, when you vote for a President, how many people who are voting know the guy personally? How many know his personal character? How he acts when off-camera? The number relative to the number of voters is extremely small.
With a multi-tiered electoral college. It would be possible for each and every vote to be cast for a candidate that the voter knows personally and TRUSTS. If a candidate has only 1,000 people to represent, he can get to know them all. They can know that the candidate they elect is trustworthy, they can trust in his judgement, because they know him.
Then the next guy up can get to know all 1,000 of the elected college. They will know who is running that is trustworthy. And the person that now represents 1,000,000 voters is trusted by those whom a majority trust. Noone has to rely on soundbytes, or unelected/untrustworthy media pundits. They only have to rely on their elected representative, who they can get rid of easily if he breaches that trust.
** One of my thoughts was that this would result in far too many government employees for it to be accepted. But with 1,000 people per representative, 1 Billion citizens would be represented by 1,001,001 total government reps. This is quite a bit fewer than the current 3,000,000 non-military employees of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ALONE!-
100%
alakazam6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No , It's fine to go on about important things and some of the really important stuff is only simple once you get it. Think Nail Puzzles...ever been tempted to cheat on one? Simplistic? Yes. That doesn't mean that but for a flash of insight you wouldn't have missed the key.
Reply
There is more than a little Truth to the rumor that people will vote themselves bread and circuses.
They have, do, and will.
They have more often than not failed to vote and awakened under the Boot.
There is an answer to Jackbootery in America...It's called the Constitution.-
-
100%
alakazam6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I honestly try to tell anyone I meet just exactly what I think of anything they ask me about.
Reply
It get's me a few hard looks sometimes....:(
Many of my RL Friends and many who I have associated with online for years really know what it means. They get it. They were already thinking the exact same thing. The Constitution is the Law in the United States of America. Period.
I Serve the Constitution...I swore a Terrible Oath to do so. So did many of my RL friends. A bunch of guys I grew up with served and I served and they introduced me to other guys who had served. Our Fourth of July parties were celebrations of Freedom. Big parties...Fireworks, BBQ and Beer. Our non military friends got it.
There are many others who did. I think most knew just exactly what it meant.
The Military exists to protect the People, not the government.
Ya...people get it.
America is the Land of the Free. -
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In your circle how many actually understand the constitution??"
Reply
Man I read parts of it at least once a week.
Every time I learn something.
It is plain language.
And it is good.
Do I "understand" it?
Maybe (but I think I may need to read it a couple of hundred times more)
At least we can agree on that it is good.
-
-
-
100%
Candida6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
willottica-24: "1 Billion citizens would be represented by 1,001,001 total government reps. This is quite a bit fewer than the current 3,000,000 non-military employees of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH ALONE!"
Reply
Don't forget the difference between representatives and government employees. Most government employees are highly specialized professionals, like engineers, nurses, psychiatrist, administrators, policy analyst, computer programmers, etc. I know that the Ontario Government has jobs like ferry-mate, tailor, pilot, artisan, correctional officer, psychologist, teacher, sign painter, actuary, and a lot lot more. You cannot simply use the representatives to fill these functions. I guess what you could do is make the lower lever representative jobs part-time.-
100%
willottica-246 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know you can't, but some COULD be filled by representatives, and the main point was that it wouldn't be a ridiculously large expansion of government.
Reply
Part-time is certainly an option, and probably a good one, since the lower-level representatives likely wouldn't vote on national policies, but just on who they trusted to vote on national policies.
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned6 Replies
-
-
-
-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/sheets...
Reply
"Table 16.1—OUTLAYS FOR HEALTH PROGRAMS:1962–2013"
This is an Excel file from the White House.
It gives a pretty good breakdown on what our government spends on health care and includes numbers for Military, government employees, and Veterans.
It says that the government spent 5.2% of GDP on health care in 2007, If Health care costs total 14% of GDP then the government is already paying more than 37% of it. And this is "Net" not "gross" because Medicare Premiums ($57.2 billion) are left out of the equation...as well as $34.6 billion from Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) contributions.
Taking that into account it appears that the government paid out about 40% of the total health care costs in 2007.
Maybe my math is wrong?...if I subtract the negative numbers I get a payout of $808.6 billion FY2007. If health care cost where 14% of a GDP of $14 trillion ( I checked GDP was %13.8 trillion so that helps my argument) the 14% of GDP number is old and I can not really confirm it.
I realize nobody checks my data, but I can not help myself.
But it appears to me that we have effectively buffered the risk of the for profit industry.
It would not be an issue to me if they where capable of filling the needs of the 45 million folks that fall between the cracks.
Hard working folks that work for themselves or small companies.
I think the issue is two-fold: I believe that it is in the interest of the insurance industry to have a very high "list" price for medical care so that folks can not afford not to have insurance. I think there are a bunch of administrators in the health care industry that are happy with the arrangement. I do not think that the care providers (healers) are among them.
I often wonder: what things would look like if revenue was performance based?
If I built a house and it fell down....chances are I would not get payed.
If I took a trip in a time machine and looked at a person paying a healer with a chicken, they would not give out the best egg layer if the child died.-
100%
canadianrancher576 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have read the first part of your comment numerous times and I think it is starting to soak in,, correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that the government pays 40% of health care cost or is that 40 % including contributions to medicare and FEHB.
Reply
As for the last part of your comment you bring up some interesting points, given the costs of alot of medical procedures the idea of performance based might not be a bad idea except I think that it would be the doctors not the hospitals that might suffer-
100%
flyonthewallzz6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Clean number is 37% net or 5.2% of GDP. to get that number they deducted the amounts that are contributed by medicare recipients and withheld from federal employee paychecks. I realize that I am only talking about 3%, but the amount folks on medicare have to pay in has increased dramatically lately. And 40% is a much more striking value than 37%.
Reply
The "Performance based" concept was just silly musing. The fact is we have to pay for this stuff up front (one way or the other) with no guarantee that our life is going to fall into capable or healing hands.
Kind of a strange business model...when the result is unimportant.
I think a capable "healer" would be the wealthiest in any community: until now.
A doctor is not considered a "Professional" just a practitioner and the pay scale may be less for him/her than the dude taking the money upfront for services to be rendered.-
100%
canadianrancher576 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is one thing that I hope does happen if the US. goes to a government run program and that is the amount that is spent on administration is restricted to a percent of the program, your comment on what doctors are paid brought up this point . The program we have up here does seem to be getting sort of top heavy and some of the administrators are receiving as much as doctors do and are producing much less. When our program was set up I also wish they had tied it to something like GDP.
Reply
-
-
-
-
86%
JimBland6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It seems to me that the most efficient health care delivery system in the United States is Medicare, with a far smaller percentage going to administrative costs than with the private insurers.
Reply
That being said, wouldn't it make sense and be more productive to enroll every citizen in Medicare?-
100%
CaptainLucid6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is you assume the goal of many private companies is to provide health care. In many cases the goal is to make money. The goal is to collect premiums not to provide care. So as long as you are healthy and giving them money everything is fine. Once you get sick the company tries to find a reason to not provide care.
Reply
-
-
22%
Icantwait6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My Fellow Americans: I have read enough. Where did all you people come from and what are you doing trying to convince the sane people here in America, Land of the Free and the Brave, that Governments can run anything correctly. Oh, I'm not saying being in charge of running things I'm saying running anything correctly. Isn't there anyone left in this new Looney Bin that values Freedom anymore?
Reply
You talk about Government Health Care like it actually has some value for the tax payers. The Health Care System was operating just fine until the Medical Industry had to charge the working class of people, rich and poor alike, for giving Health Care to those who could not work, (which was fairly ok), and those that chose not to work, (most lay abouts, which was not ok). Then it became free Health Care at the Insured Patients Expense for everyone that visited a Medical Facility that decided not to pay for it. This drove the cost of Health Care Up.
So, what exactly did we have as a result of this free Health Care for the Public Assistance People, (Welfare), Illegal Aliens, and the Truly Needed? We had a mandate by the Government forcing any Medical Facility to give them Free Medical Care and passed the Cost off onto the Legally Insured. This started raising the Cost of all Medical Care since the Government was passing these expenses on to the individuals with the insurance, thus raising Insurance Cost. Therefore making All around Health Care more expensive.
In other words, Competition disappeared and it became a hit or miss proposition. Those people that paid for Health Insurance were getting double billed to pay for those without Health Insurance. So, you might say we have already had National Health Care. The Government was literally forcing the Insured to pay for the uninsured. It isn't working and as a result we pay outrages amounts of the Green Stuff for our any kind of Health Assistance.
We are being Health Care Bankrupted by the 50% of the Population that chooses not to work, not to have Health Insurance, not to Pay for their Health Care Bills, not to pay taxes, not to be a True American. Probably our biggest problem is paying for the people South America could not provide Health Care, jobs, and a decent way of life, so they invaded our country.
Government controled Health Care Means loss of Freedom. They will be able to dictate what you can and can not do in order to insure you don't cause any Health Problems. No smoking, over eating, drinking, partying, activities, (hunting, fishing, tennis), or whatever. Communism Regime Complete. The Real American-
50%
mesodude6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Where did all you people come from and what are you doing trying to convince the sane people here in America, Land of the Free and the Brave, that Governments can run anything correctly. Oh, I'm not saying being in charge of running things I'm saying running anything correctly. Isn't there anyone left in this new Looney Bin that values Freedom anymore?"
Reply
--But we recently learned that the CIA is flawless, never makes mistakes and never tells lies (according to cons) so we know the government can work perfectly *sometimes* (that is depending on the agency the GOP is pimping to sell it's agenda at any given moment).
-
-
cherevComment removed: Hard Banned16 Replies
-
43%
Georgia506 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When an article is premised on a lie, then the article fails to escape being a lie.
Reply
Conservatives have never held in principle that government can do no good and that the private sector can do no wrong. Rather, conservatives hold--as did the founding forefathers--that human beings are flawed and so checks, balances, and restraints should be part and parcel of an orderly society. Further, we believe that a republican form of government, an objective code of law before which all stand equal, while not perfect is about the best form of government we can hope for.
It is the liberal extremists who 1) believe their own lies about conservatives, and 2) believe the polar opposite: government can do no wrong, the private sector is inherently evil. Furthermore, liberal extremists reject what conservatives and the founding forefathers believe(d) about basic human nature. Provided you are either a liberal or a criminal, you are inherently good. The only inherently evil individuals in the liberal extremists' paradigm is the conservative.
I do not refer to them as liberal filth for no reason. To the contrary, liberal extremists cannot avoid giving one all the basis necessary for referring to them as they are. -
60%
Bopi3656 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The flags are waving and suddenly its my patriotic duty to support for-profit private health care because its the American way.
Reply
Sure
If the Government can't do anything right its because in 8 yrs, they haven't.
I don't see where where bankrupting individuals w/ the current system equates to freedom. It simply maintains the status quo.
I find the concept interesting though, that insurers prefer the high cost of care as a means to frighten people into maintaining coverage or risk losing everything without. Just another way to manipulate the masses.
Even more amusing as to how neocons align themselves w/ the founding fathers As if they are the only true Americans -
33%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Whoa! Stop the presses! The Republican leader not only admits that the government can offer a better health insurance option than private industry, but that the principles of competition will go out the window -- that private insurance companies won't do everything they can to offer Americans the best and least inexpensive insurance possible?"
Reply
What a bunch of BULL$HIT!
The private sector does not have the taxing and spending power of the federal government. Therefore, it cannot compete with government-run healthcare. Private companies must pay as they go, or they go out of business. I give you a guarantee, without any fear of legitimate contradiction, that any government plan will absolutely not pay as it goes. Lip service will be given. However, once the camel gets its nose under the tent, that constraint will be gone.
To turn those facts into the notion that private plans are somehow are to be found wanting and government plans are better by comparison is blatant sophistry.-
100%
quackpot6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you want a pay-as you-go form of government, vote democrat. Pay as you go = "tax and spend".
Reply
Regan: Debt
Bush: Debt
Clinton: Surplus
Bush: Debt
Obama: Too early to tell
The Bush concept of reducing taxes to the wealthy and making up the difference between income and spending by charging it to the unborn is immoral.-
100%
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL, Quack. Dig a little deeper.
Reply
Clinton was the beneficiary of a "perfect storm" that no longer exists.
He had the end of the Cold War (Thanks to Reagan-Bush)
The economy was allowed to undergo a vast rationalization under Reagan-Bush. Old, inefficient industrial plant was allowed to wither, bloated management and featherbedded workforces were allowed to be subjected to market forces.
Clinton's economy was the beneficiary of vast productivity increases due to the implementation of new electronic technologies during his administration.
Clinton administration spending was circumscribed by a Republican congress.
Over the last 8 years, even the Republican congress clearly lost its way.
All things considered, it is utter foolishness to even contemplate the possibility that government will ever be able to pay as it goes. As with private industry, what eventually will rein it in is market forces... and evidence of those would appear in the currency and credit markets.-
Neutral
quackpot6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your comment of what will eventually rein it in.... is the key.
Reply
This eventuality was clear to Clinton, hence the "tax-and-spend" philosophy, but was lost on Bush's give-the-store-away-to-the-rich program.
The real problem with Bush's philosophy is that there are many on the right wing of the political spectrum that still feel that taxes lower than spending is a good policy even in times of plenty.
In the current times of economic troubles, the philosophy of spending more than outgo may or may not be a good plan. We will soon see.-
Neutral
jimdoze6 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Be careful to not confuse monetary stimulus with fiscal stimulus in your analysis, Quack. There has been no fiscal stimulus as of yet. However, monetary stimulus has been gargantuan. The multiplier effect of fiscal stimulus over the short run has long been very suspect. Over the long run, it does nothing more than crowd out private sector economic activity. The crowding that occurs in return for true infrastructure improvements can have positive long term economic benefits. But, most of what has been included in the current so-called stimulus bill does not meet that test.
Reply
The so-called "right wing" does not feel that permanently keeping taxes lower than spending is a good thing any more than the "left wing's" does in its recently acquired fiscal prudence. If you look a little closer you will find that the true arguement between the two has nothing to do with that and everything to do with what is defined as providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare of the body politic. It is my belief that the "left-wing" does everything in its power to juxtapose those two very important words in the Preamble to the Constitution... and, in doing so, undermines the liberty that the proper order of those words is designed to secure.
-
-
-
-
-
teeballComment removed: Hard Banned
-
43%
Georgia506 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the Demon-crats want to bray endlessly about how much they care about access to medical care, how do they explain the billions of purely pork spending that not only achieves nothing in a general sense, but that rob the health care system of financial resources it might have used to help the poor?
Reply
For that matter, we're still waiting on the Clintons to explain why they turned auditors loose on the health care system (ostensibly to root out fraud) who then proceeded to bilk hospitals and clinics for millions of dollars via regulatory shakedowns over the flimsiest of common, every day back office billing errors that had nothing to do with fraud. -
50%
Bopi3656 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As a personal note, most of my charitable donations (in the thousands) go to Vietnam Veterans of America. How about yours, Libbies?"
Reply
"how do they explain the billions of purely pork spending that not only achieves nothing in a general sense, but that rob the health care system of financial resources it might have used to help the poor?"
I wouldn't have to donate money to Iraqi war vets if Bushco hadn't made that enormous blunder.
And THAT money could have been used for Health care
Your Turn NeoCons -
75%
harpro2086 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This past Sunday, the (conservative) Denver Post had an article comparing the US and Canadian health care systems. I'm sure it's online if you wish to view it, I'm quoting the print edition. Taxes: After tax income for Canadians is 82 cents on the dollar. Everyone has government health care. For Americans, after tax income is 81.9 cents, nearly fifty mill;ion uninsured. Bureaucracy- "incompetent government workers" versus corporate greed: 31 cents of every US dollar spent on health care does not go to health care. The Canadian provincial single payer health care system spends 1 cent on the dollar for "administrative" costs. Cost of Canadian system: ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care and everyone's covered. In the US, 17 percent of GDP goes to health care and 15% of the population isn't covered. After an initial outlat, Americans will save trillions over the long term. Medical decisions: In Canada, doctors and patients have complete control over medical decisions. No government involvement. In the US, if you belong to an HMO, you're treatment decisions are vetted by a bureaucrat whose yearly bonus is tied to rejecting medical claims as frequently as possible. Medical care wait times: In Canada, there is no waiting for critical necessary care. There is a delay for specialist surgery in some cases. There is a delay for elective surgery in many cases. In the US, if you're uninsured, hospitals have to treat you if they take federal funds. After you're stabilized, you're on your own. No wait time because no care is given. Don't believe the stories about Canadian health care that begin with "my wifes hairdressers second cousins dog walker once went to Canada and heard the health care was terrible". Canadians, on average, live 2.5 years longer than Americans and have a nearly twenty percent lower infant mortality rate. The mortality rate for all cancers is 181.65 per 100,000 in Canada, in the US, the rate is 197.8 per 100,000. Billions have been spent brainwashing people into believing national health care is bad or too expensive. Just a bunch of corporate propaganda crap. The facts say otherwise.
Reply -
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
moonstream1Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned3 Replies
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.