PDA

View Full Version : A Grand Slam Home Run on Health Care "Reform"


boxcar
09-25-2009, 11:09 PM
Now, here's a guy who gets it. A man after me own heart. He hits it solidly out of the park. Gotta watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Boxcar

Indulto
09-26-2009, 05:55 AM
Now, here's a guy who gets it. A man after me own heart. ...You know, I liked his presentation too, Box.

Seldom are the defenders of the health care industry's profits so transparent.

I loved that "Queen-size sheet try to cover a full-size bed" analogy.

I guess it didn't serve his purposes to point out that by containing the bleeding of health care through insurance premium dollars not spent on patient care, we can purchase that "King-size sheet" he said we need.

And what good protector of the status quo wouldn't try to scare us into thinking that government involvement would lower the survival rate of cancer patients?

A man after your own heart, eh? I guess your body would probably reject a heart transplant funded to any extent by government dollars; especially if the donor were someone who wouldn't have been covered, treated, and his organs harvested, without a public option.

andymays
09-26-2009, 09:11 AM
Now, here's a guy who gets it. A man after me own heart. He hits it solidly out of the park. Gotta watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc

Boxcar


:ThmbUp:

Snag
09-26-2009, 09:57 AM
You know, I liked his presentation too, Box.
Seldom are the defenders of the health care industry's profits so transparent.
I loved that "Queen-size sheet try to cover a full-size bed" analogy.
I guess it didn't serve his purposes to point out that by containing the bleeding of health care through insurance premium dollars not spent on patient care, we can purchase that "King-size sheet" he said we need.
And what good protector of the status quo wouldn't try to scare us into thinking that government involvement would lower the survival rate of cancer patients?
A man after your own heart, eh? I guess your body would probably reject a heart transplant funded to any extent by government dollars; especially if the donor were someone who wouldn't have been covered, treated, and his organs harvested, without a public option.

I guess I'm one of the "defenders of the health care industry's profits...".
I guess those that want government run health care feel that profits are unjust. When did that happen?

Tom
09-26-2009, 10:42 AM
I think the key to reforming health care will be to focus on the care and not the insurance.

Indulto
09-26-2009, 10:49 AM
I guess I'm one of the "defenders of the health care industry's profits...".
I guess those that want government run health care feel that profits are unjust. When did that happen?Aren't profits unjust when people who are insured are denied care and/or further coverage in order to preserve profits?

At the very leasts those profits are proving excessive, and the burden of proof that altering funding of care will adversely affect the quality of care delivered is on those who want to profit from the process.

Haven't we already learned that waiting for the system to collapse doesn't work?

delayjf
09-26-2009, 11:08 AM
With open competition, any insurance company that drops customers at the first sign of an illness will not be in business very long once the word gets out.

boxcar
09-26-2009, 11:22 AM
You know, I liked his presentation too, Box.

Seldom are the defenders of the health care industry's profits so transparent.

I loved that "Queen-size sheet try to cover a full-size bed" analogy.

I guess it didn't serve his purposes to point out that by containing the bleeding of health care through insurance premium dollars not spent on patient care, we can purchase that "King-size sheet" he said we need.

And what good protector of the status quo wouldn't try to scare us into thinking that government involvement would lower the survival rate of cancer patients?

A man after your own heart, eh? I guess your body would probably reject a heart transplant funded to any extent by government dollars; especially if the donor were someone who wouldn't have been covered, treated, and his organs harvested, without a public option.

Good, then let the government figure out how to buy those king size sheets for that small 15% minority (and the figure is actually a lot lower than this) that doesn't have health care coverage -- just don't do it at my expense or take away my insurance with which I'm perfectly satisfied.

As BO said himself, when defending the reason for the punitive excise tax provision, it's time that everyone acted responsibly and not depend on others. I take it that he meant that for the "15%", too!

Boxcar
P.S. And what makes you think for a moment that GovCare would be high quality. Again for the 99th time, the official party line pitch for the public option is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP -- not good quality. Wake up and smell the coffee already. Cheap and High Quality are like oil and water. They don't mix very well.

Indulto
09-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Good, then let the government figure out how to buy those king size sheets for that small 15% minority (and the figure is actually a lot lower than this) that doesn't have health care coverage -- just don't do it at my expense or take away my insurance with which I'm perfectly satisfied.

As BO said himself, when defending the reason for the punitive excise tax provision, it's time that everyone acted responsibly and not depend on others. I take it that he meant that for the "15%", too!

Boxcar
P.S. And what makes you think for a moment that GovCare would be high quality. Again for the 99th time, the official party line pitch for the public option is CHEAP, CHEAP, CHEAP -- not good quality. Wake up and smell the coffee already. Cheap and High Quality are like oil and water. They don't mix very well.I'm using the same physicians on Medicare that I did before I was eligible. I personally haven't seen a lapse in quality.

I had my coffee, thank you, and the official line is "less-expensive." If your doctors charge so much more than the Medicare reimbursement, then how does your premium compare with that of the competition?

boxcar
09-26-2009, 12:45 PM
I'm using the same physicians on Medicare that I did before I was eligible. I personally haven't seen a lapse in quality.

Stay tuned; for you will. Why would the quality of socialized medicine in this country be any different than in any other nation?

I had my coffee, thank you, and the official line is "less-expensive." If your doctors charge so much more than the Medicare reimbursement, then how does your premium compare with that of the competition?

They charge more to make up for the government ripoff of Medicare. Doctors should be allowed to live comfortably too, don't you think? Or should these professionals' wages be on par with err....(trying to think of that politically correct phrase) oh, yeah...with what sanitation engineers make? :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. The coffee you're drinking is as weak as your argument.

Tom
09-26-2009, 04:56 PM
With open competition, any insurance company that drops customers at the first sign of an illness will not be in business very long once the word gets out.

That is why the Obama people are against it. It would work.

Indulto
09-26-2009, 08:16 PM
With open competition, any insurance company that drops customers at the first sign of an illness will not be in business very long once the word gets out.They're already doing that, and people know about it. That's why it's a reform issue.

I guess there must be something you're intending to communicate that I'm just not getting.:confused:

Snag
09-26-2009, 09:47 PM
Aren't profits unjust when people who are insured are denied care and/or further coverage in order to preserve profits?


So profits are bad?

Work force is reduced to preserve profits.

Expenses are cut to preserve profits.

Things are done all the time to preserve profits. Only insurance companies are the bad guys because they preserve profits?

Tom
09-26-2009, 09:55 PM
Is food free?
Are homes free?

Indulto
09-27-2009, 01:42 AM
So profits are bad?

Work force is reduced to preserve profits.

Expenses are cut to preserve profits.

Things are done all the time to preserve profits. Only insurance companies are the bad guys because they preserve profits?Snag,
I'm not against profits per se, but rather excessive profits for services that all people require and should support for the common good of society, e.g., national defense, police, firemen, health care, energy, education, etc.

How did you feel about the war profiteer(s) who produced substandard body armor?

NJ Stinks
09-27-2009, 01:50 AM
So profits are bad?

Work force is reduced to preserve profits.

Expenses are cut to preserve profits.

Things are done all the time to preserve profits. Only insurance companies are the bad guys because they preserve profits?

Really? Only insurance companies are the bad guys?

How do you feel about credit card companies charging 29% interest rates, Snag? How about credit card companies charging a $39 late fee to someone who pays their bill in full every month - even if they are one day late one month?

NJ Stinks
09-27-2009, 02:02 AM
Good, then let the government figure out how to buy those king size sheets for that small 15% minority (and the figure is actually a lot lower than this) that doesn't have health care coverage -- just don't do it at my expense or take away my insurance with which I'm perfectly satisfied.



Yea, who cares about 15% of Americans or something less, Boxcar?

Yet conservatives will fight like crazy to make sure the top 5% are not mistreated via higher taxes. Screw the poor suckers who don't have health care but don't mess with people who are loaded.

Now there's a creed to live by. :rolleyes:

boxcar
09-27-2009, 02:30 AM
Yea, who cares about 15% of Americans or something less, Boxcar?

Yet conservatives will fight like crazy to make sure the top 5% are not mistreated via higher taxes. Screw the poor suckers who don't have health care but don't mess with people who are loaded.

Now there's a creed to live by. :rolleyes:

Let me see, if I have this straight? You think that the 15% (which again is really a lot less once you deduct the illegals and all the people who freely chose to not have insurance) are all poor and the other 85% who are insured are all "loaded"? Did you really say this? :bang: :bang: Are you this brainwashed?

Boxcar

NJ Stinks
09-27-2009, 02:52 AM
Let me see, if I have this straight? You think that the 15% (which again is really a lot less once you deduct the illegals and all the people who freely chose to not have insurance) are all poor and the other 85% who are insured are all "loaded"? Did you really say this? :bang: :bang: Are you this brainwashed?

Boxcar

You've got to stop pounding your head against a wall, Boxcar. It's not helping.

I said "the top 5%" are loaded.

lsbets
09-27-2009, 07:06 AM
NJ, I think you and I agree on the credit card companies - they are bad. And they do not practice capitalism, they use graft and corruption to gain influence so legislation is passed which favors them and locks in their profits at the expense of people no responsible banker would ever make a loan to. MBNA is a perfect example. They hire Joe Biden's son, pay him a lot of money, and the good Senator gets them the bills they want. Now he's VP. Go figure.

JustRalph
09-27-2009, 08:00 AM
Snag,
e.g., national defense, police, firemen, health care, energy, education, etc.

some of the biggest wastes in society come from your list. Especially Police and Fire.........don't get me started on Education............

think that is a coincidence? What do they all have in common? except one.........for the next few months anyway

rastajenk
09-27-2009, 09:59 AM
You've got to stop pounding your head against a wall, Boxcar. It's not helping.

I said "the top 5%" are loaded.
You also referred to the uninsured as "poor suckers." I think boxcar's exasperation with your explanation is understandable.

Snag
09-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Snag,
I'm not against profits per se, but rather excessive profits for services that all people require and should support for the common good of society, e.g., national defense, police, firemen, health care, energy, education, etc.
How did you feel about the war profiteer(s) who produced substandard body armor?

My problem with your position is: Who defines excessive profits? I would rather have Tom decide what is excessive rather than either you or me and certainly not the federal government.

Profits gained from production of substandard body armor is a crime and those that did profit should be treated accordingly.

Snag
09-27-2009, 10:54 AM
Really? Only insurance companies are the bad guys?
How do you feel about credit card companies charging 29% interest rates, Snag? How about credit card companies charging a $39 late fee to someone who pays their bill in full every month - even if they are one day late one month?

NJ, my post was a question for Indulto. He was the one that posed the question about profits being good or bad.

The present interest rates that are being charged are being allowed on a state by state basis. If you don't like the laws in place, work to change them. I just don't want the federal government making a decision for everything and that seems to be the way the left is leaning these days.

NJ Stinks
09-27-2009, 11:42 AM
You also referred to the uninsured as "poor suckers." I think boxcar's exasperation with your explanation is understandable.

Have you ever met a "rich sucker" who did not have health insurance?

boxcar
09-27-2009, 01:18 PM
Have you ever met a "rich sucker" who did not have health insurance?

The better question would have been: Have you ever met anyone who, by choice, didn't have insurance and wasn't poor!?

Your argument typifies liberalism. As that congressman, said in your mind it's perfectly fine to punish the other 85% for the sake of the 15%. In your mind, it's perfectly fine to take the misery of the 15% and spread around to the 85%.
In your mind, it's perfectly okay to limit the free choices (and, therefore, infringe upon their individual liberties) of the 85% so that the 15% can be a little better off.

If the government is so concerned about the 15% (which, again, is a very inflated number once adjusted for illegals and all those who simply don't want insurance), then let the state target them specifically and leave the rest of the people alone. When those people need medical treatment, let them apply for Medicare. This is what this socialized program was designed -- it was designed to take care of all your "poor suckers".

Boxcar

rastajenk
09-27-2009, 02:18 PM
I don't know if I've ever met a rich sucker, but if I have, I'm sure I didn't ask about his health insurance situation. :)

boxcar
09-27-2009, 02:22 PM
I don't know if I've ever met a rich sucker, but if I have, I'm sure I didn't ask about his health insurance situation. :)

And neither should government! It's not the state's business. The purpose of this government is protect our rights, not to infringe upon them by constantly and incessantly limiting our free choices. Government is supposed to be limited in its powers and has no business limiting the people's free choices in the name of some "public good".

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY
09-27-2009, 02:33 PM
The better question would have been: Have you ever met anyone who, by choice, didn't have insurance and wasn't poor!?

Your argument typifies liberalism. As that congressman, said in your mind it's perfectly fine to punish the other 85% for the sake of the 15%. In your mind, it's perfectly fine to take the misery of the 15% and spread around to the 85%.
In your mind, it's perfectly okay to limit the free choices (and, therefore, infringe upon their individual liberties) of the 85% so that the 15% can be a little better off.

If the government is so concerned about the 15% (which, again, is a very inflated number once adjusted for illegals and all those who simply don't want insurance), then let the state target them specifically and leave the rest of the people alone. When those people need medical treatment, let them apply for Medicare. This is what this socialized program was designed -- it was designed to take care of all your "poor suckers".

Boxcar

Medicare was designed for the elderly who qualify at age 65. Also, Medicare includes those that social security identifies as disabled.

Medicare was not designed for "poor suckers".:confused:

boxcar
09-27-2009, 03:20 PM
Medicare was designed for the elderly who qualify at age 65. Also, Medicare includes those that social security identifies as disabled.

Medicare was not designed for "poor suckers".:confused:

I meant to say Medicaid.

Would you agree, though, that Medicare was designed essentially for people on fixed incomes, most of which could never be classified as high end?

Moreover, you're spitting into in the wind here if you think I'm in favor of any of these socialized programs. I could do a A LOT BETTER things with my income than to allow the state to confiscate it from me for purposes of bribing its constituents, growing the state, increasing its power and creating a culture of dependency.

Boxcar

DRIVEWAY
09-27-2009, 05:13 PM
I meant to say Medicaid.

Would you agree, though, that Medicare was designed essentially for people on fixed incomes, most of which could never be classified as high end?

Moreover, you're spitting into in the wind here if you think I'm in favor of any of these socialized programs. I could do a A LOT BETTER things with my income than to allow the state to confiscate it from me for purposes of bribing its constituents, growing the state, increasing its power and creating a culture of dependency.

Boxcar

Every survey of Medicare recipients says they are generally happy with the program. The 45,000,000 recipients have payed for this coverage over their working career starting in 1965.

Chances are the 1.25% of income which is matched by your employer is a sound way of paying for elderly health insurance that few could match or do a lot better things with.

Be careful with your criticism of Medicare or some old lady with a cane will wack you across the head. They get very upset with anyone who would mess with their Medicare.

rastajenk
09-27-2009, 05:43 PM
Be careful with your criticism of Medicare or some old lady with a cane will wack you across the head. They get very upset with anyone who would mess with their Medicare.I've been told it's just Fox watchers and insurance industry plants that get fired up over reform; glad to hear there are real people with real passion out there. ;)

Tom
09-27-2009, 06:24 PM
Really? Only insurance companies are the bad guys?

How do you feel about credit card companies charging 29% interest rates, Snag? How about credit card companies charging a $39 late fee to someone who pays their bill in full every month - even if they are one day late one month?

Well, you have all the government on your side......when do they fix this?
Imaging the money they could free up IMMEDIATELY just by limiting interest to 10% on all CCs and eliminating all late fees. They can do.....I can only assume they don't want to.

btw, did you read the agreement when your took out the card?