Why are so many people angry about Obamas proposed Obama-Care? - Page 9

Ego Tripping · 08-12-2009, 07:38 PM

I think that's verk point though. It's a significant part of it and we don't start there, it's going to be unlikely the other prerequisites will be filled as well.

Nug_King · 08-12-2009, 08:17 PM

I wonder if we should start denying people emergency care if they don't have insurance. Poor people have been sucking at the taxpayers tit for years with their annoying ER visits and not paying for them. I say if there is no insuance ID number, don't even send the ambulance. What is the point of saving an accident victim's life if we (taxpayers) are not willing to pay for the years of medicene and therapy after? They COULD have bought health insurance if they reeeaallly wanted to anyway.

BTW this is my approximation of the classic unempathetic Republican.

Ego Tripping · 08-12-2009, 08:30 PM

You know, you bring up an damn interesting point.

The right as of late is extropating this proposed system to such a degree that there's talk of killing the elderly and Obama's "death panel." Obviously, these are blatant exaggerations , but you basically did the same thing with the current system, which sounds just as atrocious and but somehow more realistic because I've seen it happen, unlike mass elderly euthanasia. My dad actually sat in the lobby for hours when he needed immediate attention (near ruptured appendix) due to lack of insurance.

Interesting to say the least. But one thing I've learned from the past near decade...the right is usually wrong.

I'm placing my bets on change/evolution this time around and I think a lot of other people are as well.

4nik8 · 08-13-2009, 06:01 AM

Some explanations on how we got in this healthcare mess in the first place and some real ideas of changing the status quo.

There was a time when PEOPLE took care of the people who were less fortunate and the gov't wasn't a necessity. ie churches, charities etc

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul on Healthcare

verklingen · 08-13-2009, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4nik8

There was a time when PEOPLE took care of the people who were less fortunate and the gov't wasn't a necessity. ie churches, charities etc

and yet, even then, there was a fuckload of people who needed to be taken care of but were left out in the cold. gtfo, i'm truly sick of these ridiculous, backward, anti-progressive notions.

GOVERNMENT is the structure a society uses to take care of itself. that is its definition, its very PURPOSE. yes, the less inflated this structure becomes the better, but to oppose building upon it even in a way that will actually HELP people and help our society grow. . . well, that's where libertarians get fucking kooky.

Being · 08-13-2009, 10:34 AM

You all need to read this, very carefully, and pay the fuck attention.

Bill Moyers Journal . Transcripts | PBS

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: You were also involved in the campaign by the industry to discredit Michael Moore and his film "Sicko" in 2007. In that film Moore went to several countries around the world, and reported that their health care system was better than our health care system, in particular, Canada and England. Take a look at this.
....

BILL MOYERS: So what did you think when you saw that film?

WENDELL POTTER: I thought that he hit the nail on the head with his movie. But the industry, from the moment that the industry learned that Michael Moore was taking on the health care industry, it was really concerned.

BILL MOYERS: What were they afraid of?

WENDELL POTTER: They were afraid that people would believe Michael Moore.

BILL MOYERS: We obtained a copy of the game plan that was adopted by the industry's trade association, AHIP. And it spells out the industry strategies in gold letters. It says, "Highlight horror stories of government-run systems." What was that about?

[Note: You can download the documents by clicking here and here (PDFs)]

WENDELL POTTER: The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you're heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: So your plan worked.

WENDELL POTTER: It worked beautifully.

BILL MOYERS: The film was blunted, right?

WENDELL POTTER: The film was blunted. It--

BILL MOYERS: Was it true? Did you think it contained a great truth?

WENDELL POTTER: Absolutely did.

BILL MOYERS: What was it?

WENDELL POTTER: That we shouldn't fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it's been proven in the countries that were in that movie.

You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.

And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don't want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It's more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you're in now to one that you don't want. You might be in the plan you like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you're going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you're going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined.

Quote:

WENDELL POTTER: The industry doesn't want to have any competitor. In fact, over the course of the last few years, has been shrinking the number of competitors through a lot of acquisitions and mergers. So first of all, they don't want any more competition period. They certainly don't want it from a government plan that might be operating more efficiently than they are, that they operate. The Medicare program that we have here is a government-run program that has administrative expenses that are like three percent or so.

BILL MOYERS: Compared to the industry's--

WENDELL POTTER: They spend about 20 cents of every premium dollar on overhead, which is administrative expense or profit. So they don't want to compete against a more efficient competitor.

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street. You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, there's a measure of profitability that investors look to, and it's called a medical loss ratio. And it's unique to the health insurance industry. And by medical loss ratio, I mean that it's a measure that tells investors or anyone else how much of a premium dollar is used by the insurance company to actually pay medical claims. And that has been shrinking, over the years, since the industry's been dominated by, or become dominated by for-profit insurance companies. Back in the early '90s, or back during the time that the Clinton plan was being debated, 95 cents out of every dollar was sent, you know, on average was used by the insurance companies to pay claims. Last year, it was down to just slightly above 80 percent.

So, investors want that to keep shrinking. And if they see that an insurance company has not done what they think meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they'll punish them. Investors will start leaving in droves.

I've seen a company stock price fall 20 percent in a single day, when it did not meet Wall Street's expectations with this medical loss ratio.

For example, if one company's medical loss ratio was 77.9 percent, for example, in one quarter, and the next quarter, it was 78.2 percent. It seems like a small movement. But investors will think that's ridiculous. And it's horrible.

Being · 08-13-2009, 10:39 AM

./

Quote:

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

BILL MOYERS: And they do what to make sure that they keep diminishing the medical loss ratio?

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

BILL MOYERS: So, the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

WENDELL POTTER: That's right. Exactly right.

BILL MOYERS: So they want to reverse that. They don't want my premium to go for my health care, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly right. They--

BILL MOYERS: Where does it go?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, a big chunk of it goes into shareholders' pockets. It's returned to them as part of the investment to them. It goes into the exorbitant salaries that a lot of the executives make. It goes into paying sales, marketing, and underwriting expenses. So a lot of it goes to pay those kinds of administrative functions. Overhead.

BILL MOYERS: When a member of Congress asked the three executives who appeared before the committee-- if they would end the practice of canceling policies for sick enrollees, they refused. Why did they refuse?

WENDELL POTTER: Well, they were talking to Wall Street at that moment. They were saying that because-- I guess they might have to spend some additional dollars to be more vigilant, to make sure that they were not rescinding a policy inappropriately. It makes no sense. The only reason they would have said that is to cover themselves. And to send a signal to Wall Street that you know, we're going to continue business as usual here.

You know, I've been around a long time. And I have to say, I just don't get this. I just don't understand how the corporations can oppose a plan that gives the unhealthy people a chance to be covered. And they don't want to do it themselves.

Well, keep in mind, what they want to do is enhance their profits. Enhance shareholder value. That's number one. And the way that the business that they're in is health care, certainly. But their primary motivation is to reward their shareholders.

Most of the shareholders are large, institutional investors and hedge funds. Hedge fund managers are the ones who look at the stock. And investors for large organizations. It's not mom and pop investor.

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: Who is Ron Williams, and why do you use him as the example of what Wall Street expects and wants from the insurance companies?

WENDELL POTTER: He has, apparently, had a seat at the table of health care discussion. He was recruited by Aetna from WellPoint. Aetna had gone on a buying binge. There's been an enormous amount of consolidation in the health insurance industry over the last several years. Aetna bought a lot of competitors.

It reached 21 million members. And, but what it realized and what investors began to see is that a lot of the businesses that it had bought were not all that profitable. So they were in Aetna was in a pickle. And they saw their stock price starting to plummet. So they brought-- among the things they did was bring Ron Williams in. And Williams, among the first thing he did was order a revamp of the IT system, so that--

BILL MOYERS: The information technology system--

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly, so that the company could determine more about which accounts were not profitable or margining profitable. So with that new system, he was able, and the other executives to identify the accounts that they wanted to get rid of. And over the course of a very few years, they shed eight million members.

BILL MOYERS: Eight million policy holders?

WENDELL POTTER: Eight million people, men, women, and children, yes.

Some of them were shed by intention. Some, I'm sure, probably walked because the-- or left for whatever other reason, but they intentionally had this program to purge these accounts. Eight million fewer people were enrolled in Aetna's plans. Many of them undoubtedly joined the ranks of the uninsured, because their employers had been purged.

BILL MOYERS: So what happened to Aetna's stock?

WENDELL POTTER: Went up. And it has--

BILL MOYERS: And so did Ron's--

WENDELL POTTER: And--

BILL MOYERS: --compensation, right?

WENDELL POTTER: Ron's compensation and his stock on Wall Street.

RON WILLIAMS: And so I think in the context of thinking about a government plan, what we say is, let's identify the problem we're trying to solve. Let's work collaboratively with physicians, hospitals, and other health care professionals, and make certain that we solve the problem, as opposed to introduce a new competitor who has the rulemaking ability that government would have.

BILL MOYERS: You know, there's an irony, because you hear the companies and their trade groups talking about how we don't want a public option that would put a bureaucrat between a patient and his doctor. But you've just described a situation in which a CEO is actually between a doctor and the patient,

WENDELL POTTER: It's true. And that same thing happened, in the Nataline Sarkisyan case. You had a corporate bureaucrat making a decision on coverage. So, they are trying to make you worry. And fear a government bureaucrat being between you and your doctor. What you have now is a corporate bureaucrat between you and your doctor.

BILL MOYERS: Whose motive is profit. Understandably, naturally, profit.

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: This is the key question for me. Can health reform that includes a public plan actually rid our system of the financial incentive on the part of the insurance industry to provide less for more?

WENDELL POTTER: It will help. It would help. Would it rid it? No, I don't think it would, because of the for-profit structure that is now dominant in this country. But the public plan would do a lot to keep them honest, because it would have to offer a standard benefit plan. It would have to operate more efficiently, as does the Medicare program. It would be structured, I'm certain on a level playing field, so that it wouldn't be unfair advantage to the private insurance companies. But because it could be administered more efficiently, then the private insurers, they would have to operate more efficiently. And that 20 cents in that medical loss ratio we talked about earlier might get narrower. And they don't want that.

Being · 08-13-2009, 10:39 AM

.

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: In other words, if the industry is able to kill reform, or the Democrats and the Republicans can't agree on a proposal, that's what the industry really wants.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And it happened in '93 and '94. And just about every time there has been significant legislation before Congress, the industry has been able to kill it. Yeah, the status quo works for them. They don't like to have any regulation forced on them or laws forced on them. They don't want to have any competition from the federal government, or any additional regulation from the federal government. They say they will accept it. But the behavior is that they will not-- you know, they'll not do anything after say this plan fails.

Say nothing happens. They're saying now what they did in '93, '94. "We think preexisting conditions is a bad thing," for example. Let's watch and see if they really take the initiative to do anything constructive. I bet you won't see it. They didn't then.

BILL MOYERS: Well, on the basis of the past performance, and on the basis of your own experience in the industry, can we believe them when they say they will do these things voluntarily?

WENDELL POTTER: I don't think you can. I think that they will implement things that make them more efficient. And that enhance shareholder value. And if what they do contributes to that, maybe so. But now, they do say, they are in favor of an individual mandate. They want us all to be insured.

BILL MOYERS: For the government to require every one of us to have some policy.

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And that sounds great. It is an important thing that everyone be enrolled in some kind of a benefit plan. They don't want a public plan. They want all the uninsured to have to be enrolled in a private insurance plan. They want-- they see those 50 million people as potentially 50 million new customers. So they're in favor of that. They see this as a way to essentially lock them into the system, and ensure their profitability in the future. The strategy is as it was in 1993 and '94, to conduct this charm offensive on the surface. But behind the scenes, to use front groups and third-party advocates and ideological allies. And those on Capitol Hill who are aligned with them, philosophically, to do the dirty work. To demean and scare people about a government-run plan, try to make people not even remember that Medicare, their Medicare program, is a government-run plan that has operated a lot more efficiently.

And also, the people who are enrolled in our Medicare plan like it better. The satisfaction ratings are higher in our Medicare program, a government-run program, than in private insurance. But they don't want you to remember that or to know that, and they want to scare you into thinking that through the anecdotes they tell you, that any government-run system, particularly those in Canada, and UK, and France that the people are very unhappy.

And that these people will have to wait in long lines to get care, or wait a long time to get care. I'd like to take them down to Wise County. I'd like the president to come down to Wise County, and see some real lines of Americans, standing in line to get their care.

Kompressor · 08-13-2009, 11:16 AM

Quality post[s], Being.

Thanks

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 11:54 AM

the main problem is just that average americans dont want socialism.

u guys can say what u want, im sure some people have the mo of trying to kill any reform.

just as im sure a lot of people want socialism so they can suckle of the system...

but in the middle is americans deeply skeptical about adopting a system we just fought a cold war against for 60 years.

so i dunno, this shaming us into thinking we should destroy our healthcare system for the benefit of the small number of uninsured just doesnt seem to be playing out that well. maybe they should try a different tactic, or abandon the socialism aspect of the plan and just find a way to get poor people private health care .

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 11:56 AM

u can blame the oil companies for milking consumers, blame the fashion companies for selling them things they dont need, blame the credit card companies for giving people credit (that they have to pay back), and blame the insurance industry for the fact that people live unhealthy lives and then expect their health care to be taken care of for free even tho it costs money to provide that care.

but i dont wanna live in a world with none of those things, and i certainly dont want to live in a world where all those things are run by the government and the politburo.

Grieves · 08-13-2009, 11:57 AM

If you can accurately define socialism and quit using it as the new buzz word to insult other people's ideals than I will begin to accept that your statements are even the least bit plausible...

Being · 08-13-2009, 12:30 PM

this socialism shit is so tired, overused, and retarded. Are all countries with public health insurance socialist countries? Fuck no. jesus.

Quote:

so i dunno, this shaming us into thinking we should destroy our healthcare system for the benefit of the small number of uninsured just doesnt seem to be playing out that well. maybe they should try a different tactic, or abandon the socialism aspect of the plan and just find a way to get poor people private health care .

small number... wow. you realize we have just about as many uninsured as the whole population of Canada?

When people try to present facts of a system that shouldn't be an industry, that is further destroying our economy and killing people in the process, thts shaming? get over yourself. Did you even read anything i provided, at all? How many hundreds of billions of dollars we are basically shoveling into CEOs pockets, so they can continue to reduce their medical loss ratio. Do you understand what that means, or are you just ignoring it?

We (citizens and country) are spending a shit ton more than we used to on health insurance, and getting less care, and less people being insured altogether.

Quote:

and blame the insurance industry for the fact that people live unhealthy lives and then expect their health care to be taken care of for free even tho it costs money to provide that care.

are you that conceited to think that because you haven't had a genetic disease or something of the like no one else does? you realize a lot aren't needing healthcare because they eat too much or play an extreme sport? cancer, hereditary diseases, birth defects, there are so many things that aren't cause by the individual. And you don't give two shits about them do you. Thats the problem. You care more about clinging onto the word socialism when it is a highly corporate produced scare tactic and has no bearing on the health insurance industry, instead of caring about PEOPLE.

man. its not even mandatory. ITS AN OPTION.

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 12:54 PM

1. im talking about the people that WOULD abuse the system, not the ones with "genetic skin conditions" who tried to get insurance from day 1 but the ones that wait till they were 55 to "remeber" they had it- ive said a patients bil of rights or insurance law reform is what should be done. fix PRIVATE healthcare.

2. the idea that it is an "option" and that you can "keep the care you like best" - is so clearly a lie, so clearly and repeatedly debunked, that i almost think its like you giving my side more evidence of its rightouesness in this debate when u bring up the fact that they call it an "option" .

verklingen · 08-13-2009, 01:12 PM

yeah man you are so right, just like i'm gonna have to take my kid to a public school come this time next year. there's just no market in the private sector

what has been repeatedly debunked is the notion that public healthcare precludes private insurers from doing business. there will always be people willing and able to pay more to get more just like all other aspects of our society: from schooling to entertainment to food to housing and every other fucking thing.

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 01:17 PM

the only reason i can imagine people would be so in favor of this is what they are gonna get out of it-

well in that case.

dont they understand that they will get worse care then if we could come to some way to get poor people affordable private health care?

that would be BETTER QUALITY for them ,clearly, than the gov't could provide.

anybody who thinks that if obama and his beurocrats tell us how to live and make us all healthy little lemmings to save the federal government money is a good idea, or that it will even work in the long run ,i just cant imagine what is the matter with you .

u could be arguing to meet in the middle and get poor people GOOD CARE, not make everyones care shitty so the poor can afford it.

Kompressor · 08-13-2009, 01:18 PM

Actually you are basically proving Being's premise, as you're focusing on imaginary future abusers as opposed to those that currently need it. Diseases happen later in life as well, they don't necessarily have to 'remember' it. In fact there are diseases were they cannot 'remember' it.

Can't you see you're being a little prophetic, j?

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 01:19 PM

if u want to make healthcare the same quality as schools then all i have to say is have u ever heard of what schools in america are like ? particularly the ones in poorer areas?

John F. Kerry · 08-13-2009, 01:23 PM

no actually kompressor im not "focusing on imaginary future abusers " , im realizing that under any new program that contains health care from the government subsidized by the rich we will slowly have more and more people getting plugged into and dependant upon the government for their healthcare... thats not what i want, nor is it what i think would be good for people with healthcare now, or those without it now.

they want to force more and more people onto it to get a single payer system- its a slipperly scumfuck way to lie to the ameircan people and ive heard obama himself say in his sly movie star voice "now now, we're not gona be pulling the plug on grandma" . ROFL PUKE. ... " but you can keep whatever plan you like best". frankly hes about as eloquent as he was bowing to the kind of saudi arabia.

how come he doesnt say - "you can keep your current private health insurance that will not be fundamentally altered in any way by this plan" - because it will, and the only way they can "sell" stupid people on it is by telling them it wont kick in for a few years-

why is a solution to a "broken" system designed to not start for 5 years. and not to fix it for at least 10 or more.... answer :NANCY P

Nug_King · 08-13-2009, 01:29 PM

Amazing interview at the top of this page! Thanks a lot.

As for the socialism aspect? Americans allow the govetnment to educate their children, maintain the transportation network (roads/highways), police crime domestically, go to other countries and kill people, make laws to controll our actions, put its own citizens in jail.
BUT if the government wants to help sick people , "OMG not here we are not socialists!" We just rely on the government for everything else, the one thing seperating us from "the cold war countries" is that they freely give their citizens healthcare? LAME

In the end if someone is sick enough the hospital will have to by law treat them in an emergency setting at a high cost to the general public. Why not instead pay for some preventative healthcare and medicine, save money and save LIVES.

I could care less if a small percentage abuses the system. You run the risk anytime you allow people charity, but I still happily pay my taxes into unemployment/WICKs/free clinics. If I can save 10 lives with public healthcare while one person mooches, let him mooch I just helped 10 other people!

To those who oppose this public healthcare.... lets hope if you are bleeding on the side of the road next to a car crash that there are people who will help you at no benefit to themselves.
Or maybe they should just call your insurance company and let them deal with it?

08-12-2009, 07:38 PM	#161 (permalink)
Ego Tripping Are you in? Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,468 Thanks: 229 Thanked 665 Times in 443 Posts	I think that's verk point though. It's a significant part of it and we don't start there, it's going to be unlikely the other prerequisites will be filled as well. __________________ God appears, and God is light, To those poor souls who dwell in night; But does a human form display To those who dwell in realms of day.

08-12-2009, 08:17 PM	#162 (permalink)
Nug_King RIP Wesley Willis Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Western Ct Posts: 327 Thanks: 25 Thanked 31 Times in 19 Posts	I wonder if we should start denying people emergency care if they don't have insurance. Poor people have been sucking at the taxpayers tit for years with their annoying ER visits and not paying for them. I say if there is no insuance ID number, don't even send the ambulance. What is the point of saving an accident victim's life if we (taxpayers) are not willing to pay for the years of medicene and therapy after? They COULD have bought health insurance if they reeeaallly wanted to anyway. BTW this is my approximation of the classic unempathetic Republican. __________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA found out in the beginnings of the space program that pens would not work in space. SO NASA spent millions of dollars and a good year and a half developing a pen that does not need gravity to draw the ink down. The Russians just brought pencils...

08-12-2009, 08:30 PM	#163 (permalink)
Ego Tripping Are you in? Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 13,468 Thanks: 229 Thanked 665 Times in 443 Posts	You know, you bring up an damn interesting point. The right as of late is extropating this proposed system to such a degree that there's talk of killing the elderly and Obama's "death panel." Obviously, these are blatant exaggerations , but you basically did the same thing with the current system, which sounds just as atrocious and but somehow more realistic because I've seen it happen, unlike mass elderly euthanasia. My dad actually sat in the lobby for hours when he needed immediate attention (near ruptured appendix) due to lack of insurance. Interesting to say the least. But one thing I've learned from the past near decade...the right is usually wrong. I'm placing my bets on change/evolution this time around and I think a lot of other people are as well. __________________ God appears, and God is light, To those poor souls who dwell in night; But does a human form display To those who dwell in realms of day.

08-13-2009, 11:16 AM	#169 (permalink)
Kompressor Voice of Reason Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Illinois Posts: 8,361 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3,069 Times in 1,634 Posts	Quality post[s], Being. Thanks __________________ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

08-13-2009, 11:57 AM	#172 (permalink)
Grieves The Worst Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Interstate 8 Posts: 12,108 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 2,580 Thanked 3,129 Times in 1,722 Posts	If you can accurately define socialism and quit using it as the new buzz word to insult other people's ideals than I will begin to accept that your statements are even the least bit plausible... __________________ "And no matter what they said dollar is not your friend and it's the feelings that are hard to know are the feelings that all come slow No matter what they said dollar is not your friend and these feelings that so hard to know are the feelings that wont let go No don't let go, till you find a home World Unite and I'll love you forever"

08-13-2009, 11:54 AM	#170 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	the main problem is just that average americans dont want socialism. u guys can say what u want, im sure some people have the mo of trying to kill any reform. just as im sure a lot of people want socialism so they can suckle of the system... but in the middle is americans deeply skeptical about adopting a system we just fought a cold war against for 60 years. so i dunno, this shaming us into thinking we should destroy our healthcare system for the benefit of the small number of uninsured just doesnt seem to be playing out that well. maybe they should try a different tactic, or abandon the socialism aspect of the plan and just find a way to get poor people private health care .

08-13-2009, 11:56 AM	#171 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	u can blame the oil companies for milking consumers, blame the fashion companies for selling them things they dont need, blame the credit card companies for giving people credit (that they have to pay back), and blame the insurance industry for the fact that people live unhealthy lives and then expect their health care to be taken care of for free even tho it costs money to provide that care. but i dont wanna live in a world with none of those things, and i certainly dont want to live in a world where all those things are run by the government and the politburo.

08-13-2009, 12:54 PM	#174 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	1. im talking about the people that WOULD abuse the system, not the ones with "genetic skin conditions" who tried to get insurance from day 1 but the ones that wait till they were 55 to "remeber" they had it- ive said a patients bil of rights or insurance law reform is what should be done. fix PRIVATE healthcare. 2. the idea that it is an "option" and that you can "keep the care you like best" - is so clearly a lie, so clearly and repeatedly debunked, that i almost think its like you giving my side more evidence of its rightouesness in this debate when u bring up the fact that they call it an "option" . Last edited by John F. Kerry; 08-13-2009 at 12:57 PM.

08-13-2009, 01:12 PM	#175 (permalink)
verklingen Radical Dreamer Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: texas Posts: 8,005 Thanks: 811 Thanked 1,491 Times in 946 Posts	yeah man you are so right, just like i'm gonna have to take my kid to a public school come this time next year. there's just no market in the private sector what has been repeatedly debunked is the notion that public healthcare precludes private insurers from doing business. there will always be people willing and able to pay more to get more just like all other aspects of our society: from schooling to entertainment to food to housing and every other fucking thing. __________________ “Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” rip matt

08-13-2009, 01:17 PM	#176 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	the only reason i can imagine people would be so in favor of this is what they are gonna get out of it- well in that case. dont they understand that they will get worse care then if we could come to some way to get poor people affordable private health care? that would be BETTER QUALITY for them ,clearly, than the gov't could provide. anybody who thinks that if obama and his beurocrats tell us how to live and make us all healthy little lemmings to save the federal government money is a good idea, or that it will even work in the long run ,i just cant imagine what is the matter with you . u could be arguing to meet in the middle and get poor people GOOD CARE, not make everyones care shitty so the poor can afford it.

08-13-2009, 01:18 PM	#177 (permalink)
Kompressor Voice of Reason Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Illinois Posts: 8,361 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3,069 Times in 1,634 Posts	Actually you are basically proving Being's premise, as you're focusing on imaginary future abusers as opposed to those that currently need it. Diseases happen later in life as well, they don't necessarily have to 'remember' it. In fact there are diseases were they cannot 'remember' it. Can't you see you're being a little prophetic, j? __________________ Think like a man of action, act like a man of thought. -H. Bergson

08-13-2009, 01:19 PM	#178 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	if u want to make healthcare the same quality as schools then all i have to say is have u ever heard of what schools in america are like ? particularly the ones in poorer areas?

08-13-2009, 01:23 PM	#179 (permalink)
John F. Kerry Weiner-stache Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 3,734 Thanks: 1,831 Thanked 497 Times in 355 Posts	no actually kompressor im not "focusing on imaginary future abusers " , im realizing that under any new program that contains health care from the government subsidized by the rich we will slowly have more and more people getting plugged into and dependant upon the government for their healthcare... thats not what i want, nor is it what i think would be good for people with healthcare now, or those without it now. they want to force more and more people onto it to get a single payer system- its a slipperly scumfuck way to lie to the ameircan people and ive heard obama himself say in his sly movie star voice "now now, we're not gona be pulling the plug on grandma" . ROFL PUKE. ... " but you can keep whatever plan you like best". frankly hes about as eloquent as he was bowing to the kind of saudi arabia. how come he doesnt say - "you can keep your current private health insurance that will not be fundamentally altered in any way by this plan" - because it will, and the only way they can "sell" stupid people on it is by telling them it wont kick in for a few years- why is a solution to a "broken" system designed to not start for 5 years. and not to fix it for at least 10 or more.... answer :NANCY P

08-13-2009, 01:29 PM	#180 (permalink)
Nug_King RIP Wesley Willis Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Western Ct Posts: 327 Thanks: 25 Thanked 31 Times in 19 Posts	Amazing interview at the top of this page! Thanks a lot. As for the socialism aspect? Americans allow the govetnment to educate their children, maintain the transportation network (roads/highways), police crime domestically, go to other countries and kill people, make laws to controll our actions, put its own citizens in jail. BUT if the government wants to help sick people , "OMG not here we are not socialists!" We just rely on the government for everything else, the one thing seperating us from "the cold war countries" is that they freely give their citizens healthcare? LAME In the end if someone is sick enough the hospital will have to by law treat them in an emergency setting at a high cost to the general public. Why not instead pay for some preventative healthcare and medicine, save money and save LIVES. I could care less if a small percentage abuses the system. You run the risk anytime you allow people charity, but I still happily pay my taxes into unemployment/WICKs/free clinics. If I can save 10 lives with public healthcare while one person mooches, let him mooch I just helped 10 other people! To those who oppose this public healthcare.... lets hope if you are bleeding on the side of the road next to a car crash that there are people who will help you at no benefit to themselves. Or maybe they should just call your insurance company and let them deal with it? __________________ -------------------------------------------------------------------- NASA found out in the beginnings of the space program that pens would not work in space. SO NASA spent millions of dollars and a good year and a half developing a pen that does not need gravity to draw the ink down. The Russians just brought pencils...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: