Via Bits and Pieces
Obama's Health Care Plan
Apparently FR thinks this is racist, because they pulled it, but I don't. He isn't even black, he is a South American medicine man. It is making fun of the fact that Obama's health plan is every bit as hocus pocus as a witch doctors medical treatments. Develop a sense of humor, honestly.
Via Bits and Pieces
Via Bits and Pieces
12 comments:
hocus pocus? how so.
at least it comes with numbers and more than a 4 pg overview.
why such opposition to a healthy country?
Hocus pocus because it isn't feasible. How do you provide adequate health care for 350 million+ people of varying needs and health concerns, while maintaining high standards, low prices, low wait times, etc. You don't, not through one large government plan. The key is private health care, through lower costs for care and insurance, by lowering frivolous lawsuits against doctors and insurance companies for a start.
Not against a healthy country, against the government involved in health care, and tax payers footing the bill, for what would turn out to be colossally expensive, and inevitably another large deduction from all of our paychecks, just like social security.
It's a pipe dream to consider universal health care as a miracle cure for universal availability to quality health care. If you look at any other country that currently uses such a system, they will tell you horror stories of wait times, no choice free choice of Dr.'s or facilities, exuberant costs (taxes) when it was labeled as free, etc.
Not only that, but it is one less freedom we have as Americans, and one more intrusion of Uncle Sam into our lives. Don't you like personal liberty? Don't you like providing for yourself? Don't you like making your own decisions? How does a bureaucrat in Washington know what is better for you and I? Or how to solve all of our problems when they can't even solve their own? All they know how to do is open a check book, linked to an empty, debt filled (that's putting it lightly) account. Please, I know the idea of everyone having free health care is appealing, but you have to think of the costs and consequences, and realize that the right, capitalism, and freedom provide the same outcome, without the intrusion, loss of freedom, and great cost.
You should review the CBO's last review of the proposed plan. It's been cut from $1T to $600B and covers more people. That would be less than the war in Iraq which we've had no problem dumping money into. Less than the troth of money we're feeding bank pigs. In the end it would wind up reeling in the deficit. Seriously.
Without a public OPTION, see OPTIONAL, the private companies have no reason to reform. They're rolling in profits, and that is what drives them. A public OPTION would bring competition back into the market. Look at the effect Medicare had on prescription drugs.
As far as horror stories, sure long waits would be inevitable, but doesn't waiting for care beat not having any care? I spent almost a year after graduation looking for a real job. The insurance I could afford was horribly inadequate. I had a terrible cough for months but couldn't take the time from my part time jobs to see a doctor as the cost of going plus the cost of losing work hours would put me behind on bills. Besides it was just a cough. About a month later, after coughing up blood for a few days, I had to go to the ER. That was the cheap part, my medicine (being 6 pills and an inhaler) for the bronchitis I now had, was over $300. That was WITH insurance. Not much later I had a bike accident and broke my arm. The only thing I could afford to do was self medicate. I am now lucky enough to have paid benefits at the 'real' job that I worked so hard to get. Most people are not so lucky. The public OPTION, would not force you to leave your private plan, nor your employer sponsored plan. If you weren't satisfied you'd have another OPTION. If you couldn't afford your private plan, you'd have another OPTION.
So I ask you "Don't you like personal liberty? Don't you like making your own decisions?"
Why do you think the Health Care Industry could afford to pump $25.2 million into lobbyists? That's only for the first three months of 2009. They are making a ton of profit on screwing over the sick.
A public OPTION means more preventive care, and thus a drastic reduction in long term costs. A public OPTION means that when you fall and seriously injure yourself you don't have to decide how little you can eat for the next 6 months to pay for the bills. A public OPTION imposes so very little on anyone, but does a bevy of good for those who desperately need it.
You sound terribly mistaken in your understanding of what is being discussed for a public option, and considering your post about how we need to wake up and better understand politics and what our leaders are doing, I'm left confused. You're either refusing to follow the suggestions which you give to others, or just promoting points that you know are bunk. Either way, kind of sad.
1. You've failed to see one important point. The public OPTION that you enjoyed capitalizing time and time again will be managed by the same group of people who set the rules for every other insurance company. If Obama was so concerned about rising health costs why not just pass a new law(s) mandating what needs to change. The government starting their own health plan is as absurd as the government organizing a new grocery store chain to "stem the tide of rising food costs and force the private grocery store chains to get in line."
2. The next problem is that the public plan will either grow and take over the market, or fail. Either way the result will be bad for the country. If the public plan succeeds and it grows to include a large portion of the population, other private insurance companies will inevitably go out of business. This will of course translate into more unemployment. The insurance industry is large with many employees. The United States has one of the highest quality health care in the world with our so called "flawed system." When one company takes over an industry its called a monopoly, and its against the law. The policy behind this law is that when one company monopolizes an industry it is bad for the consumers. My question is simple: Why would it be any different (and not infinitely worse) when the government takes over an industry?
Now, lets look at the opposite. What if they pass the plan, it starts up, and nobody uses it (or significantly fewer people use it). What do you think the honorable politicians in Washington will do? Do you honestly think they will call a press conference explaining their poor decision? No. They will try to cover their tracks by forcing people into the public option by passing stricter laws on the private sector. Intentionally killing portions of the private sector so the people who lost their insurance in the private sector will "more likely" go to the cheaper public sector insurance. Dangerous, and stupid.
3. The public sector might offer preventative care, but with a price. Imagine 5 years into the future with a public option that is being used by many of the "low income" families/individuals who couldn't afford insurance before the public option became available. From a statistical standpoint, a large number of low income families are considered obese and over-weight; and a larger number of obese and over-weight people have health problems. In a private system a doctor can give advice, but can not force the individual to comply with his orders. In a public system, however, a law could be passed effectively mandating anyone on the public option to listen to their doctor and comply with their orders. When the public option begins losing money because of the huge costs from all the obese people weighing down the system, what do you think the government will do? Why not pass laws forcing people to live healthier lives? Or force the obese people to lose weight and live according to their mandate? What if the government passed a law banning all foods with too much cholesterol or fat? It might sound good, but it would take away our freedom to choose. It might be beneficial for society to go to church, but that doesn't mean the government can mandate that the population attend church services. Why? Because it takes away our right to choose (good or bad).
This is not an extreme view. Certain locales have already banned trans fat from all food available within its jurisdiction.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a public OPTION adds to our freedoms as a society. The only choice that is gained is that we'll have one cheap insurance option. However, the effect of the new cheap option will be freedoms lost. Society will lose more freedom than it will gain.
Chappy, dude,
your entire argument is rife with contradictions and unrealistic hypotheticals.
that was epic in it's failing.
Pretty easy to say an argument is unrealistic. Much more difficult to prove it and allow me to respond.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Othy, enlighten us with specifics on the "contradictions and unrealistic hypotheticals." An argument that isn't expounded on, isn't worth much.
well you make it challenging when you block any response i enter.
so to point out a few
contradictions:
"If Obama was so concerned about rising health costs why not just pass a new law(s) mandating what needs to change" sounds a lot like a gov't take over to me, and yet you say "Why would [not be bad for consumers] when the government takes over an industry?
is it good or bad? i's confused.
"The next problem is that the public plan will either grow and take over the market" and yet you say "This will of course translate into more unemployment" So when one health care provider is shrinking it's losing jobs, and the other while growing wouldn't be needing more employers?
as for hypotheticals, that's all you mention. you clearly have no understanding of HELP as it stands in it's drafting stage. so, as Notoriously Conservative suggests (and i agree with) why don't you actually get involved in policy and politics. learn what legislation is being drafted before you startling rattling off nonsense. a public option will not allow doctors to force you to do anything. public preventative care will not be imposed on you. but when you can go to the doctor for just a small co-pay, you will be more likely to do so and thus less likely to have serious maladies grow unnoticed.
i do agree with one comment you said
"he only choice that is gained is that we'll have one cheap insurance option."
that's the whole point.
smell ya later
WOW! Being liberal is dangerous.
As for the first supposed contradiction a simple explanation between the meanings of government take over, and government regulation will suffice.
1. Government takeover means that the govt shuts down an industry (either by accident or on purpose) and fills the role as the sole provider of the services available in that industry. If a private company shuts down all other competition and becomes the sole provider of a service within a specific industry it is called a monopoly. It is generally agreed that a company can not monopolize an industry, and it is codified in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. However, liberals tend to think that the govt should be exempt from the Sherman Anti-Trust laws.
2. Government regulation is entirely different than a government takeover. Regulation occurs when the govt, usually through the legislative branch, passes laws setting the boundaries of an industry. For example, regulating the types of insurance coverage an insurance company may offer (or not offer) to the public.
The difference between govt takeover and regulation is obvious. The govt becomes the industry in a take over, whereas the govt sets rules for the private sector in regulations. One is unacceptable, and one is common place in the United States.
As for the second supposed contradiction, you make a horrible logical assumption: number of jobs in one business are exactly equal to the number of jobs available in another company if one goes out of business. You make it sound simple, that if one private insurance company goes out of business then another with pick up all the laid-off employees and remain exactly even. However, my argument is not that the private sector will remain the same, but rather that as insurance companies go out of business the govt will pick up the unemployed and uninsured. Essentially sinking the private sector and facilitating a govt take-over (explained above).
Next time, try reading a persons arguments. Also, try not to cherry pick what people say.
whoever said i was liberal chappy?
as a fiscal conservative, i'll take health care
that brings down our debt. why wouldn't you?
and it's being conservative that is dangerous. mostly because of the obliviousness that is exemplified here and through most blogs which are similar.
if you want to talk about cherry picking arguments, you'd have to come up with one. you're right my rebuttal was half-assed, but i really didn't feel like taking your dribble even remotely serious. again you failed on massive proportions in talking about anything near reality. so if you'd like to have a real discussion with the grown ups. study up first.
i found this site through a post NC put up on bits and pieces regarding the image. i assumed he was being ironic, but clearly i was mistaken.
but have fun pretending to know what you're talking about.
What is it with people simply saying "your argument is crap" without anything to back it up.
Calling names will get you now where Othy (i.e. "dribble"). I failed on "massive proportions"? How? Anything near reality? What reality are you referring to? How will public health care lower our debt? Which debt (private households or govt debt)? And if I understand your statement correctly, you are asserting that by the govt spending billions, maybe trillions, we will somehow lower our debt? Apparently your reality is different than our reality.
You seem quite knowledgeable in nothing but ad hominem attacks (If you don't know what that means you better study up). Stick to the facts as you keep asserting and lay off the personal attacks. It might work with some people, but it won't work here.
Dearest chappy,
calling names is different than calling a duck a duck. and you've got nothing above a bucket of feathered quacks.
presumptions also lead to trouble, and make you look a little silly.
look, i meant it when i said that you'd have to study up if you wanted to have a real discussion. and yet you said:
"How will public health care lower our debt? Which debt (private households or govt debt)? And if I understand your statement correctly, you are asserting that by the govt spending billions, maybe trillions, we will somehow lower our debt?"
These answers, really, are quite obtainable. If you already know, why are you asking? If you don't, then why pretend like you do by arguing against them?
These aren't personal attacks, i'm merely pointing out that you have no argument. you are simply babbling, you leave nothing to respond to. if you took the time to provide an actual rebuttal to my first significant post, perhaps we could maintain some actual debate.
so let me ask you a question then. do you deny that the cost of health care is sky rocketing? if not than you must agree that the cost is driving up our national debt. if you still agree, then a reform of health care, specifically the induction of a public option to create competitive pricing, would reign in costs of health care, thereby reigning in the most runaway aspect of our national debt.
so again, as Notoriously Conservative (who apparently doesn't have much to offer on this subject) has suggested. study up. i'll give you a boost.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
Post a Comment
I reserve the right to delete profane, obscene, or otherwise insulting messages. So please, keep it clean.
While you're at it, visit our message boards!