How the Health Crisis was solved 80 years ago.

[Plow]

Now I'm Curious. I wonder if these same people who scream Socialism would be willing to sign a letter forgoing any Social security benefits and Medicare. Me thinks they take a big game but at the end the day they will be waiting for that check at the end of the month.

The best part about it all is that 8 years of an entirely unobstructed republican government took us from having a surplus and making the largest debt paydowns in history, to the biggest deficit, and hand in hand with that, the biggest debt in history...

And now all the sudden when the democrats are in control, debt and deficit are bad things again. Not to mention, all our fault.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

I'd feel pretty fucking bad, I'd do my best to inform and persuade but at the end of the day, your decision is your decision. In this particular case, your actions hurt you and you alone and with that in mind, I have no right force a vaccine / cure upon your John Doe.

I can't help you if you wont let me(etc), kind of thing.

Though I wonder, even if there is a public option for them, it seems as if they're still probably not going to take advantage of it if they're that strong felt about their beliefs. (Looking just at your examples of course). Dosn't really acomplish anything in this case aside from taxing them.

Even then, these people are kicking and screaming socialism, and frankly I feel that my approach allows them to have their cake for a bit longer and hopefully allow them to make a better decision based on other states results. (Hopefully through example of it working / not working in other states).

There will still be people content with their private provider and not wanting to paying into the health care system they themselfs don't benefit from and their people (In that state) don't benefit from. There is a state for them out there somewhere hopefully.

Your example does open up another can of soup entirely and the real issue at hand (It seems) is the lack of education.

You gave me what I asked for which was a compromise. The state to state idea is an excellent concession that still provides opportunity for private industry. I wanted to at least put that out before further debating, so I do appreciate we were able to hit a level of civility and actually debate a topic with substance.

But I think as we've explored it's going to be a can of worms for one reason or another no matter what we decide. If it came down to us trying a state mandated healthcare system I would be leaps and bounds happier than just having to deal with what we have because Obama's plan is shot down.

Unfortunately ( and I may just be missing this ), I'm not hearing this conversation on the national level. This is counterproductive. At this point what it becomes is, if this healthcare bill fails because of fringe radicalism, threats, and dangerous rhetoric and name-calling it now becomes more than healthcare; we've just empowered the fringe right by telling them that when they overreact they will get their way. This is why Islamic terrorism exploded onto the scene the way it did.

Now the Republican leadership had various opportunities to use this platform of small government to pitch something along these lines and they decided to just go with the fine mix of "protect capitalism, anti-socialism, birther" pride parade which turned this into a German shitfest on Beta cassette tape.

All things aside, I ask, where do you draw the line of deciding whats best for everyone? This is where things get a bit scary In my eyes.
If it were to stop at health care then I'd probably be fine (Though it does leave a sour taste in my mouth at the moment, Ill have to think it over).

That question runs a little bit deeper than this conversation and bleeds over into several debates. Where you, Swamp, and Poh may see that paying taxes for someone else's healthcare is an infringement on your freedom, I see that anyone making any profit on someone's health is not only and infringement on our freedom, but downright vile.

The responsibilities of a business is to profit off of the population. There are no scruples here, this is very cut and dry. The responsibility of a government is to protect the people. Understandably with so many theories on how to run government there are too many scruples here, but if you trust what groundwork our founding fathers laid then you shouldn't have to worry about the federal government overstepping its bounds. If it worked then, and works now, it will work tomorrow and the next day.






And if you really want the troops to come home safe you'll stop bashing the public option.

[Rhinox]

Perfect example of a hypocrite.

Disabled vet who is using either Tricare if he is still active in some way or Vet Health care if he was dischared.

[Beckwin]

the problem with a state-by-state solution isn't massive population shifts and resulting negative impacts. that wouldn't happen; rather you'd just have a situation where many poor would still be trapped in a state with unaffordable private insurance while the public-option states are operating less efficiently than possible because of a smaller pool and then across state borders people would have trouble getting care if they got sick while traveling/working/etc.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

the problem with a state-by-state solution isn't massive population shifts and resulting negative impacts. that wouldn't happen; rather you'd just have a situation where many poor would still be trapped in a state with unaffordable private insurance while the public-option states are operating less efficiently than possible because of a smaller pool and then across state borders people would have trouble getting care if they got sick while traveling/working/etc.

If states can afford to ship the poor out, then they sure ship the poor in.

As to you're 2nd part, if people have trouble getting help in those states it will be because of the lines. =)

Seriously though, why wouldn't they pay to have their insurance cover it?

And if I didn't have to pay I would gladly opt of SS and medicare/caid.

[Beckwin]

shipping poor in and pretending that's gonna help the pooling of rates while also having enough people paying into the program is pretty ridiculous. having more people will drive rates down, but if your lower bracket is all that's stacked, you're going to have trouble paying for it and will likely deal with some debt or increased taxpayer funding of the program.

[Sirrus_Asura]

But I think as we've explored it's going to be a can of worms for one reason or another no matter what we decide. If it came down to us trying a state mandated healthcare system I would be leaps and bounds happier than just having to deal with what we have because Obama's plan is shot down.

Unfortunately ( and I may just be missing this ), I'm not hearing this conversation on the national level. This is counterproductive. At this point what it becomes is, if this healthcare bill fails because of fringe radicalism, threats, and dangerous rhetoric and name-calling it now becomes more than healthcare; we've just empowered the fringe right by telling them that when they overreact they will get their way. This is why Islamic terrorism exploded onto the scene the way it did.

Unfortunately so. =|

Now the Republican leadership had various opportunities to use this platform of small government to pitch something along these lines and they decided to just go with the fine mix of "protect capitalism, anti-socialism, birther" pride parade which turned this into a German shitfest on Beta cassette tape.

Yea but then they wouldn't have to debate other issues. We can't have that now can we?

That question runs a little bit deeper than this conversation and bleeds over into several debates. Where you, Swamp, and Poh may see that paying taxes for someone else's healthcare is an infringement on your freedom, I see that anyone making any profit on someone's health is not only and infringement on our freedom, but downright vile.

We can argue this another time I suppose, as I said, it's about where you draw the line. It really comes down to a difference of how you view what exactly is freedom and what exactly are rights.

The responsibilities of a business is to profit off of the population. There are no scruples here, this is very cut and dry. The responsibility of a government is to protect the people. Understandably with so many theories on how to run government there are too many scruples here, but if you trust what groundwork our founding fathers laid then you shouldn't have to worry about the federal government overstepping its bounds. If it worked then, and works now, it will work tomorrow and the next day.

Well like I said before, you cannot pass enough laws and rules to make someone do the right thing. The groundwork is no different. But that's why we're supposed to have an informed population to decide once they've done such(Wishfull thinking eh?).

And if you really want the troops to come home safe you'll stop bashing the public option.

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFF

[Sirrus_Asura]

the problem with a state-by-state solution isn't massive population shifts and resulting negative impacts. that wouldn't happen; rather you'd just have a situation where many poor would still be trapped in a state with unaffordable private insurance while the public-option states are operating less efficiently than possible because of a smaller pool and then across state borders people would have trouble getting care if they got sick while traveling/working/etc.

I'm not sure what really changes going from state run insurance to federal insurance. How does a bigger pool of money (Along with a bigger group to support), make anything easier / more efficient?

This is also assuming however that private insurance doesn't become more competitive in the whole scheme of things and lower rates.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

Unfortunately so. =|



Yea but then they wouldn't have to debate other issues. We can't have that now can we?



We can argue this another time I suppose, as I said, it's about where you draw the line. It really comes down to a difference of how you view what exactly is freedom and what exactly are rights.




Well like I said before, you cannot pass enough laws and rules to make someone do the right thing. The groundwork is no different. But that's why we're supposed to have an informed population to decide once they've done such(Wishfull thinking eh?).



FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF FFFFFFFFFF

Better to come to a standstill of reasoning than a standstill of name calling. Good job, BG America!

[Sirrus_Asura]

Better to come to a standstill of reasoning than a standstill of name calling. Good job, BG America!

So we gonna fuck now or what?

[Gadritan]

Better to come to a standstill of reasoning than a standstill of name calling. Good job, BG America!

If by reasoning you mean a lot of ignorant people attempting to look legit by justifying their statements with speculation and off the wall theories, then ya, I agree. Kudos.

[Sirrus_Asura]

If by reasoning you mean a lot of ignorant people attempting to look legit by justifying their statements with speculation and off the wall theories, then ya, I agree. Kudos.

Awww man you just killed my erection.

[Gadritan]

Awww man you just killed my erection.

You could go see a doctor for that. Some insurance companies cover it.

BUT!

WILL THEY STILL HELP YOU GET A HARD ON IF THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER!?

GO!

[Serif]

Haha I am watching the Town Halls on C-SPAN. Anyone else watching them?

Some priceless shit, Howard Dean is basically answering all of James Moran's questions.

[Beckwin]

I'm not sure what really changes going from state run insurance to federal insurance. How does a bigger pool of money (Along with a bigger group to support), make anything easier / more efficient?

This is also assuming however that private insurance doesn't become more competitive in the whole scheme of things and lower rates.

larger pools drive down costs; that's just sort of a given principle. you deal with less (proportional) administrative overhead for one, and risk is pooled/spread over a larger base. larger insurance groups have more sway in prices of procedures/care because doctors/hospitals know that if they deny service to a huge base of their patients, they'll lose a lot more money than shaving a little profit per procedure.

[Sirrus_Asura]

larger pools drive down costs; that's just sort of a given principle. you deal with less (proportional) administrative overhead for one, and risk is pooled/spread over a larger base. larger insurance groups have more sway in prices of procedures/care because doctors/hospitals know that if they deny service to a huge base of their patients, they'll lose a lot more money than shaving a little profit per procedure.

So you think it would not be able to support itself under any reasonable circumstance at a state level, but a federal level would be fine?

[Sirrus_Asura]

You could go see a doctor for that. Some insurance companies cover it.

BUT!

WILL THEY STILL HELP YOU GET A HARD ON IF THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER!?

GO!

I'm getting hard just thinking about it all. Problem fixed. Thanks.

[Rhinox]

aww its so cute its like watching a battered housewife kissing up to her husband.

[Enkidu]

lol thanks for mentioning c-span... just saw a fat redneck with jokerobama, much lulz.

[Sirrus_Asura]

lol thanks for mentioning c-span... just saw a fat redneck with jokerobama, much lulz.

Wanna hear how I got these scars?






Public Option.