QuoteIt's like climbing a mountain in a group where some have 40-lb packs, and others have 80-lb packs, and others have porters.
This provides an example of the differing perspectives on things. Climbing a mountain is a fine metaphor. You've got the person with the 40 pound pack. He's doing something difficult - climbing the mountain.
The person with the 80 pound pack is cloimbing the mountain with an added disadvantage.
Then you've got the guy with the porters. Still climbing the mountain but has help.
Apparently not considered are the porters. Doing a hard job. And getting to the top just like everyone else. In fact, they are better at it than anyone else, including the guy with the advantage of having them.
You can figure out who is who under a socialist system. The one with the 80 pound pack is the one who has demonstrated he is the best. He can do it with a 10 pound pack in half the time as the next fastest. Let's call him "the rich.". Most likely, he used to be the bearer of the 40 pound pack. Over the last 20 years he has worked hard to get to his skill level, making the most of his natural ability.
The one with the 40 pound pack. Let's call him "middle class." He's steady and strong and will get there. He could get by with a 20 pound pack. While lacking in the interest or energy or maybe talent in really excelling, he has demonstrated real competence.
The one without the pack? Let's call him "the less fortunate." He has not trained for this. He has not prepared himself for the task of climbing that mountain and has been told he cannot do it without help, and needs a good 200 pounds of equipment to ensure his summit. It is unknown whether he has any natural ability. He probably doesn't. No matter. Policy is for him to get to the top, and the government this will ensure that he gets there.
The government, having decided that all should get to the top and shall do so at the same time, helps "less fortunate guy."
First, it places the load on "rich guy" and insults his lack of caring when he protests that 80 pounds will be too much for him to take.
It puts an extra 20 pounds on "middle class guy," telling him "Be glad! I've given rich guy and extra 70 pounds. You can keep up with him."
That still leaves 110 pounds of added weight to get "less fortunate" guy to the top. The government then provides porters - free of charge - to underprivileged guy, paid for by other rich guys and middle class guys.
Eventually, they will reach the top after adjustments are made to the loads. Rich guy couldn't get by with the load he had, and the porters would shoulder no more than 55 pounds each (union rules). So another porter was sent in.
So we've got a government deciding that the goal should be everyone reaches the top.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Quote
To suggest that Palin's claims have "no truth" is spin. There is some truth. The argument that end-of-life costs are the biggest and thus would have to be controlled somehow is valid. She spun it to give the most shock and awe.
There's very little truth and it stemmed from the section that allowed for Drs to discuss end of life issues with their patients. It was deliberately spun dishonestly. But it makes for an inflammatory headline and that's what's important.
[Reply]
Yes. And mega-million dollar fines and judgments are bad for business. As risk-pooling and risk-averse entities, they'll pay the $2 million monitoring and care for an insured instead of risking a $20 million civil judgment.
But if you purge 20,000 people over a five year period you can avoid $300,000,000 in payouts for claims. At that point $20M simply becomes a cost of doing business. It's like the Bank of America bailout. You get billions in aid, payout a few billion in bonuses and then get fined 33 million. Big deal.
Quote
Is this not a reason to fear out of control health care spending by the government.
I do fear it. When PhRMA alone is spending $3M/week lobbying Congress, I fear what will come out of it. I don't like this bill as I think that single payer should have had its day in committee. But I do think that passage of a bill with a public option is likely better than the status quo.
Quote
The proponents aren't saying anything other than "insurance companies bad. They created this mess." And tell stories about coverage denials.
And the opponents aren't saying anything other than " death panels" and "euthanasia" and telling stories about about denials. There is little to no honest discussion of actual issues. Partly because it would bore the hell out of people when what they really want in their "news" is entertainment.
Quote
And how's this for a scary thought. Imagine that Clinton was successful in providing national, single payor health care. Then Dubya would have been president and in charge of it.
Would that have been a good thin
Yea, that could be scary, especially if the system were set up under the executive branch like the EPA. I'd like to hope that the system would be set up with a few more degrees of separation.
wmw999 2,452
We had porters when we walked the Inca trail. Boy, those guys would take down & pack the tents and equipment, run past us (in sandals) with the heavy tents and equipment, set up a camp for the next meal, and then applaud
as the intrepid paying customers came in to eat the hot meal they'd prepared.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
Quote
Yes. Much like the Palin is an Idiot was created by a bunch of liberals. Recall, Palin was an idiot while Obama was Ivy League genius.
No, Palin created this with her talks with Katie Couric.
How did she 'beat' Obama anyway? Come on, it's not an even match. Health care (or social security) reform is going to have to be done someday, but if it were simple as doing it, we would have already. Any fix is going to suck for a lot of people, if not most of us. And for most of us, the status quo of health care is good enough.
That's not to say that any crappy solution should be adopted, but that it is very easy to organize opposition, esp if you're willing to mislead.
QuoteQuoteQuoteShe played to the only strength she has, making inflammatory (and often flat out wrong, as in this case) comments to rile up the uneducated.
Such as the proponents of the public option blaming insurance companies for the expense of health care?
The only difference between Palin's message asn Obama's message is that, while equally false and rhetorical, Palin's message resonated with more people.
How about that? A retarded bimbo can win a debate against a Harvard lawyer! A retarded bimbo can more effectively spin and argue an issue than a Harvard lawyer! Either Harvard lawyers are themselves retarded or Palin is not retarded.
P.s. - why is my objectivity an issue when I point out that her comment was a lie? I simply pointed out that her lie is actuallyrang more true than his whoppers.
[Reply]Hell, even McCain knows she was a fucking retarded choice and has said as much on record.
"A retarded choice" does not equal "retarded bimbo.". You are calling McCain retarded now.
However, I'm glad you are not defending calling her a retarded bimbo because it is pretty much indefensible.
[Reply]By defending her you seriously call into question your objectivity.
Bullshit. I'm not defending her. I'm assaulting your tactics of personal attack.
And frankly, if attacking Bible Spice and Dubya is the best you've got, then there isn't much to defend.
I quit. Arguing with a lawyer is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded.
So then you will stipulate that Palin is not retarded? Nor a bimbo?
Retarded: "slow or limited in intellectual or emotional development or academic progress." - Merriam-Webster
Bimbo: " a generalized term of disapproval especially for an attractive but vacuous person" - Merriam Webster
(of course, "retarded bimbo" is itself redundant.)
No. She's no Marilyn Vos Savant. She may not even be a Hillary Clinton or Condee Rice.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,998
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>If the government runs the health care system who do you go to?
If you are using your own insurance company? The courts. If you are using the government option? Then a government board. You choose.
If you are using your own insurance company? The courts. If you are using the government option? Then a government board. You choose.
billvon 2,998
>How will Bill twist this and spin this. . .
Wendy did a better job than I would have done proving you wrong.
Wendy did a better job than I would have done proving you wrong.
QuoteThere's very little truth and it stemmed from the section that allowed for Drs to discuss end of life issues with their patients. It was deliberately spun dishonestly. But it makes for an inflammatory headline and that's what's important.
Of course. Admitted.
QuoteBut if you purge 20,000 people over a five year period you can avoid $300,000,000 in payouts for claims.
So you avoid paying out $300,000,000 to 20k people. Which works out to $15k per person. $10k in premiums per person per year for five years totals out $1 billion. It is absolutely idiotic for a business to give up a $700 million profit in order to avoid a $300 million dollar payout.
QuoteIt's like the Bank of America bailout. You get billions in aid, payout a few billion in bonuses and then get fined 33 million. Big deal.
Pretty funny what happens when the government gets involved. Rewarding incompentence and even outright misanthropy gets rewarded. And you want them providing our health care?
QuoteWhen PhRMA alone is spending $3M/week lobbying Congress, I fear what will come out of it. I don't like this bill as I think that single payer should have had its day in committee. But I do think that passage of a bill with a public option is likely better than the status quo.
Okay. Why? Big Pharmacy loves it! The Drug Lobby also particularly enjoys that David Axelrod is Obama's chief advisor. You are right to be concerned about PhRMA, as well. Well, not so much concerned about the lobbying organization itself, but rather that PhRMA hired AKP&D Message and Media.
David Axelrod, upon taking his post, sold his interest to Kupper, Del Cecato and Larry Grisolano and he was still owed about $2 million. So, President Obama's senior advisor is getting money from a firm that counts PhRMA as a client - a client that is rather heavily pushing this reform.
No, there is not enough to start a fire, but definitely smoke.
And, as I have repeated, governmental policy shifts like this will choose winners (like Pharmacy companies) and losers (like health insurers).
QuoteAnd the opponents aren't saying anything other than " death panels" and "euthanasia" and telling stories about about denials. There is little to no honest discussion of actual issues. Partly because it would bore the hell out of people when what they really want in their "news" is entertainment.
Yep. Coming from both sides. No discussion of the thing. Just
"death panels"
"insurance companies do it, too"
"No they don't"
"Do so"
"Well the government will limit choice"
"Will not"
"Will so!"
QuoteYea, that could be scary, especially if the system were set up under the executive branch like the EPA. I'd like to hope that the system would be set up with a few more degrees of separation.
It won't. It'll likely be a cabinet level department, or perhaps under the Surgeon General.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 2,998
>Of which do you speak?
The current house proposal.
>Bullshit. A safety net already exists in the form of Medicaid.
Right. And that does nothing to decrease healthcare premiums because it is not an option that can compete with any other healthcare plan.
> The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit
> in order to survive.
So you are against competition as well as choice. China might be a better option for you; less choice there AND less competition.
>Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to
>make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves.
I agree. Which is why I think the house plan is a good idea. Choose whatever you want, and get whatever you choose.
>Expand options for the indigent, and leave the rest of us alone.
Great idea! We could add a CHOICE (say, a public option) and leave the rest of the options alone.
> No, what terrifies me is giving an administration with a socialist agenda . . .
Then put on your big boy pants, face your fears and make some constructive suggestions instead of promulgating lies and calling people names.
The current house proposal.
>Bullshit. A safety net already exists in the form of Medicaid.
Right. And that does nothing to decrease healthcare premiums because it is not an option that can compete with any other healthcare plan.
> The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit
> in order to survive.
So you are against competition as well as choice. China might be a better option for you; less choice there AND less competition.
>Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to
>make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves.
I agree. Which is why I think the house plan is a good idea. Choose whatever you want, and get whatever you choose.
>Expand options for the indigent, and leave the rest of us alone.
Great idea! We could add a CHOICE (say, a public option) and leave the rest of the options alone.
> No, what terrifies me is giving an administration with a socialist agenda . . .
Then put on your big boy pants, face your fears and make some constructive suggestions instead of promulgating lies and calling people names.
rushmc 23
QuoteAnd the self-proclaimed conservatives are only happy if there is someone worse off than they are, so they can feel superior. Not true Wendy. Empower people is what makes them feel better about themselves.Quotebig green monster you have on your shoulder shows you are in the right party. As long as you are pissed that somebody has more that you well, you will ALWAYS be pissed.
Demonization of companies to sell a political program removes self reliance and lower self esteem. I want everybody to be the best they can be. Sucking the hind tit of governement only make people feel worse about themselves and creates a voting block giving those running it more power
That's a game that plays well all over the place.
The human condition is such that people are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunities. You can say they're born equal, but some are smarter, some are prettier, some have better parents, some are born into communities with lots of support and good examples. Some aren't.And nothing any government does will change this fact. Goverment only takes from one to give to another. This does not empower them, it enslaves them!
That's the way life is. But some people prefer to flatten that out, figuring that if some at the top give a little it spreads a whole lot farther. Others prefer to leave things the way they are, and let people try to make their way to the top.
Boy it sucks if you're one of those who's not so pretty, or smart, or supported. It's like climbing a mountain in a group where some have 40-lb packs, and others have 80-lb packs, and others have porters.In the end, people only have to answer to themselves for their condition
Wendy P.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
rushmc 23
Quote>Socialized medicine is what it is. Rationing care to the elderly results in
>the same thing.
Ah, so you're one of the people who really believe the lies.
Ah, so you believe the government lies
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
QuoteSo you are against competition as well as choice. China might be a better option for you; less choice there AND less competition.
That's good Bill. I know you see the difference between free market competition and the "competition" subsidised by the federal government. You're not stupid. You're just being antagonistic.
Big boy pants? Face my fears? I guess you need to resort to trying to piss someone off when your argument falls to the lows of the irony pointed out above. You go on promulgating the lies of the left. Thankfully, not many are listening now.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
If you want health care to be provided to you at no cost I have an excellent way you can achieve this.
Of course you would have to work and take orders.
Then maybe take some lumps as well.
Risk your life, kill perhaps, maybe even contemplate not being a hand wringing liberal.
Of course you would have to work and take orders.
Then maybe take some lumps as well.
Risk your life, kill perhaps, maybe even contemplate not being a hand wringing liberal.
QuoteThe human condition is such that people are not born equal, nor do they have equal opportunities. You can say they're born equal...
Why would you want everyone to be equal? Or the same? What a boring, Orwellian world that would be. We should strive to make sure that everyone has equal access to the law, and equal rights, but not sameness. Pointing guns at people to attempt to equalize their situations is just plain evil.
The forecast is mostly sunny with occasional beer.
[Reply]
> The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit
> in order to survive.
So you are against competition as well as choice. China might be a better option for you; less choice there AND less competition.
>Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to
>make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves.
I agree. Which is why I think the house plan is a good idea. Choose whatever you want, and get whatever you choose..
> The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit
> in order to survive.
So you are against competition as well as choice. China might be a better option for you; less choice there AND less competition.
>Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to
>make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves.
I agree. Which is why I think the house plan is a good idea. Choose whatever you want, and get whatever you choose..
Bill - it's not that simple.
Check out anti-trust laws. By law (and sensibly, I might add) it is illegal to offer products and services at below cost as a business practice. For example, when Microsoft offers free Internet Explorer, it offered the general public another "choice." One that really didn't cost anything or was, at the very least, a less expendive option.
Microsoft's "offering consumers a choice" defense didn't fly. They were out to bury Netscape.
Anybody else does it, the government calls it "unfair competition." Microsoft, Standard Oil, etc., could eat massive losses while competitors could not afford to lose the money and would be driven out of business.
This is because there is no effective choice! A "public option" means "public."
And - the government has an advantage, as well. To keep their anti-competitve "public option" solvent will take taxes of, what, a projected trillion dollars over the next decade? $500 billion? (Take the estmate and multiply by four to get a more accurate projection,)
This deficit is made up for by taxes. Taxes paid for by the wealthy and middle class. The initial system is for taxation of wealthy and middle class.
So if I'm paying, say, $1,500 per month in my taxes for health care I am now unavailable to afford a private option. The pool of the privately insured shrinks dramatically because there is no "private option."
This is how "options" aint so optional...
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Already losing points there Billy boy. The proposal doesn't exist. Several do. Of which do you speak?
Bullshit. A safety net already exists in the form of Medicaid. I agree with Tom in that several plans already exist if what we wanted to do was cover those with no options. Why not expand those?
I'm not against choice, but I'm against this lie disguised as choice. The public option will crowd out the companies who have to make a profit in order to survive. (In spite of BHO's gaffe made in the original post) The feds just raise taxes. And if you believe the next lie that their option will have to be self sustaining, I'll point you to the history of any other entitlement program, like Social Securtiy for instance. Further, BHO and others, including most recently Barney Frank, have stated that the public option is the best way to pave the road to the single payer system. So why are YOU against choice, Bill?
Nice twist, but no, I support free Americans operating within the free market to make decisions for and take responsibility for themselves. Expand options for the indigent, and leave the rest of us alone.
No, you're right, no one is going to kill them. They lived full, long lives under the free market system, and they are both no longer with us. Yeah, Bill, freedom terrifies me. No, what terrifies me is giving an administration with a socialist agenda a foothold in an arena they have no constitutional charter to enter. Not to mention the cost and the fact that we're broke and can't do it. You're choosing to ignore Obama's stated advocacy of the single payer system, and his stated understanding of the steps required to get there. You're believing the lie. Thankfully, more don't than do, and this won't be passed.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites