i forgive you, hell i voted for Bill Clinton in '92 :eek: what a fuckup that was. i will apologize today for that vote, too. :jointsmile:
Printable View
i forgive you, hell i voted for Bill Clinton in '92 :eek: what a fuckup that was. i will apologize today for that vote, too. :jointsmile:
I have "friends" who would never speak to me again if they heard me say i was turning on Obama. I was a big suporter of his. What a fraud it turns out. Another tax and spend liberal of my parents generation. I learned a valuble lesson from " Change we can believe in". What a crock of shit.
^ live and learn, eh? i, for one, will never vote dem again at the national level. They are all bat shit crazy. repubs, too, for that matter.
I believe it is beneficial to help identify the problems with our health care system.
With good/service that is so inelastically demanded, such as health care, the markets pricing mechanism creates a considerable amount of unintended consequences.
Think about it; if you were an insurance company, would you be willing to ascribe to a policy of insuring the most risky demographic in the US, AKA the elderly? Of course not, and rightfully so. It is estimated that Americans will spend more than 2/3 of their total health care costs during their last year of life, and around 1/2 during their last month of life. Suffice to say, it would not be profitable for an insurance company to cover this type of demographic. Therefore, the government has agreed to supplement the elderly for this failure in the market mechanism.
Next we have those with pre existing conditions. A private insurance company would be insane to offer insurance to this particular demographic, because the odds are, on the aggregate, the liabilities will far outweigh the revenue gained from adding them to their customer base. And yet... we have yet to offer a governmental supplement to make up for the dead weight loss incorporated in the health care market.
While it is possibly true that a young strapping man as myself will not get sick, or injured, the odds are that if i were to forgo insurance, and were to get seriously injured or ill, i would be up to my ears in medical bills. Being the rational economic agent i am, i would not find it logical to attempt to pay off tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands in hospital bills, and therefore stick it to the hospitals.
This type of behavior puts considerable cost pressures on hospitals. Combine this with the use of Emergency Rooms acting as primary physician care for those without health insurance, and we can begin to see how costs are being "spread" throughout the system. Many of these illnesses could have been more easily and more cost effectively treated prior to the visit to the ER.
The solution is simple. Create a public option that allows anyone who demands it to be able to obtain it. In doing so, there must be serious legislation enacted that allows private insurance companies the right to deny coverage to anyone they see fit. For the most part, this will be the obese, smokers, elderly (already covered :) ) those with pre-existing conditions, or even those who do not pay their premiums in an orderly fashion.
This allows the private sector to do what it does best, and reduces the burden from its risk pool, which has led to the double digit increases in health care costs. It also provides a competitive edge to the consumer. If insurance companies push too many people off their plan, without due diligence, then they will be forced to raise their premiums. A competitive company will attempt to keep as many profitable candidates in the pool without tarnishing its reputation, or putting long run costs out of tune (thereby forcing them to jack up rates).
Those who do not have insurance will then be able to obtain it, and hospitals will no longer be forced to foot the bill, or make financial decisions that can cost the lives of many sick Americans, as they are so regretfully forced to do on a daily, if not hourly basis.
I challenge anyone who disagrees with my premise to debate me with the facts. But be warned in advance, i will employ the most cutting edge economic literature and statistics to support my assertions.
Axlerod and cronies shoulda hired you to blabber for a Govt. run healthcare system, you woulda done alot better than they did with Obama and Pelosi
1) Tort Reform
2) Remove federal laws and open all the states to all the insurance companies
3) stay outta the way. Govt. isnt the solution, clearly its the problem
your simple solution to the dilemma denies the truth of what insurance really is. it is an investment in your future health, a gamble that the price of your accumulated premiums will be less than the cost of treatment for some catastrophic illness in the future. it is not a discount on medical treatment or a charity for the indigent. just as medicine is a business, dependent on profit for growth and advances, so is medical insurance. for there to be any rational reform in the health care industries we must distance the business of insurance from the business of the actual care, just as auto insurance is from the automotive industry and home owner's insurance is from home construction, and deal with each independently. for too long these separate industries have fed off of each other, each trying to outdo the other in corruption and graft, and the end result has been outrageous prices for medical care and a series of loopholes and inequities in insurance coverage. the lion's share of the blame for these problems lies at the feet of the most corrupt player in this game, a government comprised of self-serving animals that unevenly applies restrictions and uses the graft generated by the interference of those tasked to oversee the field to fill political war chests.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoy812
the notion that a state controlled public option can be a self-sustaining answer to the dilemma is nothing more than a bald faced lie. any profit that may emerge during flush times will be immediately funneled into the pet projects of petty bureaucrats and, without the investment of private backers to ride out the unexpected, the onus for any shortfall lies firmly with the american taxpayer. the immediate pool for a state run insurance consists of those without the means to purchase coverage from private sources, so their premiums must be minimal and their coverage, as a consequence, must be minimal as well. this leaves us with the same problem we have now, the poor refusing to pay for medical services that their insurance does not cover. the problem is magnified by the fact that, aside from the normal costs of existence, they must also pay for an insurance that does not meet their needs. government subsidizing of those premiums still places the tax burden on the wealthy and the middle class, so once again we have the american taxpayer footing the bill for another corrupt state run charity.
that is what this whole thing is about, now isn't it? another mandatory charity to help line the pockets of washington's criminal element, our unresponsive representatives, and steal a bit more of the people's self-determination. another way to make politicians appear as if they really care about those they represent, while they consolidate their power over the destiny of this nation and decimate the control of the individual over his own life. the answers that government gives us only serve to erase a bit more of the personal responsibility we should take over our own actions and increase its hold over the social, economic and ethical life of this country.
to hell with your statistics and economic theory. the truth of the matter is there for anyone to see, anyone that cares to question the motives of the liberal establishment. government always takes the easy way out. what it cannot control it either destroys or takes over. in this case their agenda is clear, to take over a major segment of our economy by destroying much of the private sector's access to profit and taxing the hell out of the rest of it.
[quote=delusionsofNORMALity]your simple solution to the dilemma denies the truth of what insurance really is. it is an investment in your future health, a gamble that the price of your accumulated premiums will be less than the cost of treatment for some catastrophic illness in the future. it is not a discount on medical treatment or a charity for the indigent. just as medicine is a business, dependent on profit for growth and advances, so is medical insurance. for there to be any rational reform in the health care industries we must distance the business of insurance from the business of the actual care, just as auto insurance is from the automotive industry and home owner's insurance is from home construction, and deal with each independently. for too long these separate industries have fed off of each other, each trying to outdo the other in corruption and graft, and the end result has been outrageous prices for medical care and a series of loopholes and inequities in insurance coverage. the lion's share of the blame for these problems lies at the feet of the most corrupt player in this game, a government comprised of self-serving animals that unevenly applies restrictions and uses the graft generated by the interference of those tasked to oversee the field to fill political war chests.
the notion that a state controlled public option can be a self-sustaining answer to the dilemma is nothing more than a bald faced lie. any profit that may emerge during flush times will be immediately funneled into the pet projects of petty bureaucrats and, without the investment of private backers to ride out the unexpected, the onus for any shortfall lies firmly with the american taxpayer. the immediate pool for a state run insurance consists of those without the means to purchase coverage from private sources, so their premiums must be minimal and their coverage, as a consequence, must be minimal as well. this leaves us with the same problem we have now, the poor refusing to pay for medical services that their insurance does not cover. the problem is magnified by the fact that, aside from the normal costs of existence, they must also pay for an insurance that does not meet their needs. government subsidizing of those premiums still places the tax burden on the wealthy and the middle class, so once again we have the american taxpayer footing the bill for another corrupt state run charity.
that is what this whole thing is about, now isn't it? another mandatory charity to help line the pockets of washington's criminal element, our unresponsive representatives, and steal a bit more of the people's self-determination. another way to make politicians appear as if they really care about those they represent, while they consolidate their power over the destiny of this nation and decimate the control of the individual over his own life. the answers that government gives us only serve to erase a bit more of the personal responsibility we should take over our own actions and increase its hold over the social, economic and ethical life of this country.
to hell with your statistics and economic theory. the truth of the matter is there for anyone to see, anyone that cares to question the motives of the liberal establishment. government always takes the easy way out. what it cannot control it either destroys or takes over. in this case their agenda is clear, to take over a major segment of our economy by destroying much of the private sector's access to profit and taxing the hell out of the rest of it.[/QUOTE
This about sums up my feelings. Cant help but feel trapped in the middle by these 2 parties. Something has gotta give soon. What will that be? F--k I dont know.....but something has gotta give.