We have second rate health care in the U.S.?

[boxcar]

If you listen to the libs and pay any attention to their biased charts, the U.S. health care system sucks eggs big time. So many countries rank ahead of us, if we believe those charts. If this is the case, then was has the King of Saudi Arabia flown all the way over here to a NYC hospital for treatment? Enlightened Europe is so much closer, isn't it? The UK with its excellent care. Or what about France with their care? Or Switzerland with theirs?

Or maybe other socialized countries have better care? Why didn't the King fly to Cuba? Or why not to Venezuela? Or how about Canada, which loves to pride herself on the quality of her care? :rolleyes: But the King with all his money decides to come here to the U.S. because no doubt he believes this is where he'll get the best care for his money. I find it revealing that he didn't fly to any socialist country -- that he gave the cold shoulder to all socialist countries -- where the care is allegedly so much better than our own. :rolleyes:

How does that old adage go: Money talks, and everything else walks?

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/7420905-usa-saudi-king-received-in-new-york

Boxcar

[Black Ruby]

Nah, he came over here knowing that you, with your kind and gentle spirit, would hear about it and would be praying for him non-stop!

[lamboguy]

i really haven't got the foggiest idea why you guys have to coin health care as a liberal or conservetive issue.

no matter how hard you try to separate consevetives from liberals, the labels both never changes. there is no difference between liberal's and conservetives in this country. ZERO difference

and that is why gold is going to $1600 and more down the road

[hcap]

We have great health care for those that can afford it. And super health care for the super rich.

Those so-called "Biased" charts by evil liberals show just how "biased" our system is. In favor of Saudi kings.

[horses4courses]

Saying we have some of the best doctors is not the same as praising our health care system.

Of course, the US has many of the best specialist doctors.
They are well paid for their efforts.

[boxcar]

We have great health care for those that can afford it. And super health care for the super rich.

Right. Which is exactly why the U.S. is their number one choice! Anyway you want to spin this, the "super rich" and just your every day common "rich", will more likely choose to be treated here rather than anywhere else. I find that odd given the supposed superiority of quality in some many of the socialistic countries.

Those so-called "Biased" charts by evil liberals show just how "biased" our system is. In favor of Saudi kings.[/QUOTE]

No. They're biased for the "pooooor" by showing what a raw deal the not-so-rich are supposedly getting.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

i really haven't got the foggiest idea why you guys have to coin health care as a liberal or conservetive issue.

Because it was the authoritarian--lovin' liberals who forced socialized medicine down our throats and took our choices. They own ObamaCare. No conservative voted for it.

no matter how hard you try to separate consevetives from liberals, the labels both never changes. there is no difference between liberal's and conservetives in this country. ZERO difference

and that is why gold is going to $1600 and more down the road

Well, then...we're both going to make out like bandits, aren't we? ;)

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

Because it was the authoritarian--lovin' liberals who forced socialized medicine down our throats and took our choices. They own ObamaCare. No conservative voted for it.



Well, then...we're both going to make out like bandits, aren't we? ;)

Boxcarabsolutely untrue and you know it. this healthcare plan was molded together the same way romney did it in massachusetts. in case you don't remember mitt romney was the favorite to win the republican nomination for president until the people figured out that he was the guy that invented health care to rob the citizens.
you miss the whole point, all these politions are in the bag and their only agenda is to rob the public.

this is yet another reason why gold is going to $1600 an ounce and beyond

[Dave Schwartz]

Right. Which is exactly why the U.S. is their number one choice! Anyway you want to spin this, the "super rich" and just your every day common "rich", will more likely choose to be treated here rather than anywhere else. I find that odd given the supposed superiority of quality in some many of the socialistic countries.


Boxie,

IMHO, HCP is right. We do have better care for the rich. For the less-than-rich, well, you're fortunate if you get any care at all. Of course, if you are poor you just go in and take what they give you then let the middle class pay for it.

However, what has been proposed (again, IMHO) does not address the real problem. Good health care SHOULD be a right of every citizen. The current system, which is purely profit-driven - by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies - turns health care DECISIONS into financial ones.


What we really have in this country is a non-partisan effort from both parties to take care of the people who got them elected. Notice I did not say "those who elected them." That's a different group.

If you have no lobbyist representing your interests in Washington, then you aren't being represented at all!

Whoever proposes change in healthcare only makes those changes that are acceptable to doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, who all have strong lobbying forces.

Nothing significant will ever change in healthcare until the lobbying system goes away, which isn't going to happen any time soon.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[serp]

The problem is not the quality of our best doctors. The problem is with it's availability to a big percentage of our population.

Obama's evil healthcare plan is almost the exact same thing as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993 which was the republican's main response to Clinton's healthcare reform efforts. The republican's authored many amendments for Obama's healthcare reform bill (and then even voted against some of their own amendments).

Republicans are not against healthcare reform or anything in this bill. They are against the fact that Obama might get credit for passing it. They know that many of the things this bill brings will be looked upon favorably in the future and they don't want it coming from a democrat.

[boxcar]

absolutely untrue and you know it. this healthcare plan was molded together the same way romney did it in massachusetts. in case you don't remember mitt romney was the favorite to win the republican nomination for president until the people figured out that he was the guy that invented health care to rob the citizens.
you miss the whole point, all these politions are in the bag and their only agenda is to rob the public.

this is yet another reason why gold is going to $1600 an ounce and beyond

Mitt is a HUGE RINO, so what is your point? (Please don't tell me you think he's a conservative!) But tell me which Republicans voted for ObamaCare? Obama blew that opportunity when he and the Demon's leadership opted to circumvent the normal voting process in the Senate. You doubt this after this last election? Who made the huge gains and meaning gains in the House and Senate, respectively? Liberals? :bang: :bang: :bang: The voters had it right and they kicked out a huge number of those responsible.

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

you finally got something right here. they didn't have to vote for it because the stupid democrats did their dirty work for them all by themselves.

[boxcar]

Boxie,

IMHO, HCP is right. We do have better care for the rich. For the less-than-rich, well, you're fortunate if you get any care at all. Of course, if you are poor you just go in and take what they give you then let the middle class pay for it.

However, what has been proposed (again, IMHO) does not address the real problem. Good health care SHOULD be a right of every citizen. The current system, which is purely profit-driven - by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies - turns health care DECISIONS into financial ones.

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement. Health care is no more a God-given (or even mere human) right than any of the more fundamental necessities of life, e.g. housing, clothing and food. Do we demand that the government give us these too? We have seen what the Community Reinvestment Act has done to this country, right? Affordable housing for all -- even for those who barely have two nickels to rub together? :bang: :bang: Everyone has a right to home ownership? Now we have a right to health care?

I have never been against real health care reform -- as long as the reforms are free market-based. There were numerous things that could have been done, but they were all rejected by liberals in favor of socialized medicine. All socialized medicine is going to do do is seriously dilute the quality of health care -- even for people who could have afforded better for themselves and their family but now either won't be allowed to have better care, or won't be able to any longer afford that better cafe because they have to pay for someone else too! All socialized medicine will do is compromise on quality while everyone will turn a blind eye to this fact, but simultaneously applaud how so many people now have access to second rate care! And I predict that because economic conditions will probably worsen, the cost of care will INCREASE because there will be fewer "haves" to pay for the "have nots"! So, now we'll be faced with a double whammy: Inferior quality care and higher costs! :bang: :bang: If what I just stated weren't true that Saudi King would have sought his medical care in some socialist country! If you can't blame him for not wanting to settle for second best, then why blame any conservative not wanting to either?

Dave, it's an irrefutable fact in business that any business can only offer two of these three elements if they want to remain a viable, profit-making entity: Price, Quality, Service. There is no way on this green planet any business can offer all three. Now...you may color me as "selfish" because I opt to chose for Quality and Service. But it is in my body and if I want to be around for a while, I had better insist that the doctors get it right and that I have as many options open to me as possible.. And the only ones I want involved in my decision-making processes are my immediate family, my doctors and my insurance company with whom I have a contract. I must have freedom of choice when it comes to my body. Women have it when it comes to deciding whether to abort or give birth, don't they? Isn't the classic argument with a woman: "It's my body"!? Likewise, I don't want the government making decisions for me in the name of some trumped up "social justice", 'human rights" nonsense. I don't want any portion of my income to be squandered by a government that is notoriously known for its wasteful spending practices as well as for its propensity for being defrauded. Nor do I want any of my money being spent on unknown, nameless, faceless human beings when I have no idea of their worthiness of my help. Nor do I want the U.S. government playing politics with my health care so that politicians can advance their own selfish agendas!

In conclusion, health care is no more a human right than is the fundamentally more important items of shelter, food or clothing. And I feel very comfortable with my position because, most importantly, the Good Book supports it. ;)

Boxcar

[boxcar]

you finally got something right here. they didn't have to vote for it because the stupid democrats did their dirty work for them all by themselves.

That's right. And take a look again at the 11/9 election results -- not just on the federal level either!

And "dirty work" is right! It was so dirty all the Dems were running from their precious "health care reform" during their campaigns. They made sure to make it a non-issue.

And I suppose you're proud of the fact that they passed this garbage before even reading it? Bravo! Let's hear it for our brave, courageous, fearless Democrats who loved the poor and downtrodden so much they sacrificed themselves this last election on their behalf. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Unbelievable!

Boxcar

[Dave Schwartz]

In conclusion, health care is no more a human right than is the fundamentally more important items of shelter, food or clothing. And I feel very comfortable with my position because, most importantly, the Good Book supports it

I agree - it is not.

However, I believe it should be.

Just my opinion.

Dave

[JustRalph]

Dave, making it a right does not change the fact that "we" still have to pay for it. That remains the tough part.

Figure that part out and you can call it anything you want.

As long as equitable payment system is found ......therein lies the real problem

[hcap]

In conclusion, health care is no more a human right than is the fundamentally more important items of shelter, food or clothing. And I feel very comfortable with my position because, most importantly, the Good Book supports it


I agree - it is not.
However, I believe it should be.
Just my opinion.

DaveI agree Dave. The issue is one of efficiency and availability to all. Studies show other western democracies do a better job at less cost per capita. Obama could not pass a bill modeled fully on those systems. Never happen given the political environment So we wind up with a flawed attempt, but at least start.

[bigmack]

The issue is one of efficiency and availability to all. So we wind up with a flawed attempt, but at least start.
Arguably, the attempt is so flawed that it will take years to undue its shortcomings, and there are many. That's the shame of it.

Let's leave the partisan out of it and say that it needs to be changed. That change was an abomination. No American man/woman stands with a policy of "you want health care? - PAY FOR IT."

There are measures that SHOULD be implemented to insure those that have little means.

You know we're both silly to down play or uplift the merits of the American HC system.

It is true. We're America. We need to look after our own with some level of compassion & evenhandedness.

[hcap]

The issue is whether or not it is a "right".I believe it is. Food and shelter as well. . A safety net is a mark of a civilized society

Those that game the system should not prevent the majority of honest and truly needy from receiving help. Fraud exists in all areas of life. That's why regulation, laws and court systems exist. Trust but verify.

[bigmack]

The issue is whether or not it is a "right".I believe it is. Food and shelter as well. . A safety net is a mark of a civilized society

Those that game the system should not prevent the majority of honest and truly needy from receiving help. Fraud exists in all areas of life. That's why regulation, laws and court systems exist. Trust but verify.
Why is it necessary for you to move in a direction of resentment in your expression of those that game the system? From what I perceive, you blow your cover and show an unseemly tack by rolling with a 'class warfare' angle. People make dough. People struggle with dough. While you might find that to your disliking, it will always be the case.

Communal living where we all throw our loot on the table and live collectively as one doesn't work. You know that.

[hcap]

Not sure if that was a "lib for a week" talking or you reverted back to a sarcastic con stance.
The problem of fraud is real and a sticky point for cons. The reality however is that by far IS NOT the primary area of waste and inefficiency.

I.E. where our dollars go

http://www.motherjones.com/files/images/blog_medical_costs_international.jpg

The "average" number is a little hard to see, so here it is: $34,454. That's 2x what it costs in Germany, 3x what it costs in France, and 6x what it costs in Switzerland.

[hcap]

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/everything-costs-more/

International Federation of Health Plans’ Annual Comparative Price Report. From their press release:

The International Federation of Health Plans today released its 2010 Comparative Price Report detailing its annual survey of medical costs per unit. The study is done to help member plans better understand why health care costs are so much higher in some countries than others. Prices for the same medical procedures, tests, scans and treatments vary widely from country to country. The survey data showed that average U.S. prices for procedures were once again the highest of those in the 12 countries surveyed for nearly all of the 14 common services and procedures reviewed.

Let’s start with a CT scan of the head:

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Head-CT-500x345.jpg

How about MRI’s?

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/MRI-500x344.jpg

[lsbets]

The issue is whether or not it is a "right".I believe it is. Food and shelter as well. . A safety net is a mark of a civilized society

Those that game the system should not prevent the majority of honest and truly needy from receiving help. Fraud exists in all areas of life. That's why regulation, laws and court systems exist. Trust but verify.

So since you believe food and shelter are a right, I guess you would have no problem with a homeless person breaking into your home, raiding the fridge, and spending a few nights, right? After all, he has a right to food and shelter and you cannot deny someone that which they are entitled to based on a right.

[hcap]

You are a dead ringer for boxcar :cool:

There is a difference between a homeless person in need and a homeless person in need who commits a crime. However still more understandable then a corporate thief that steals and cheats. All so-called "Welfare Queens" and homeless added together who cheat and steal and game the system are still less of a burden on the country than the financial goniffs that did the same and screwed us all.

[lsbets]

If it is his right to be provided with food and shelter, and you are able to provide it, then he is not committing a crime by taking it from you, after all, it is you who are interfering with his rights by not giving it to him. It would be you who is committing the crime. We've been down this road before. You have no understanding of what a right is. While food, shelter, and medical care are all great things that a society should do its best to help those who are unable to get those on their own acquire, they are not rights.

[Tom]

If food and clothing and medical care is a right, then no one can be forced to pay for them, because it is their right to have them. If one group has to pay for them and another does not, it is not the right of the later group anymore.

Until you get it through your heads that a right cannot create a liability for someone else, you will never solve any problems. You have to stop whining and start thinking.

[DRIVEWAY]

According to the cost charts posted above, an MRI or CT scan in the USA costs three times as much as it does in Canada.

How is that possible?

[johnhannibalsmith]

According to the cost charts posted above, an MRI or CT scan in the USA costs three times as much as it does in Canada.

How is that possible?

Welp... my guess...

seven parts lawyer, two parts claims processor, one part general stupidity.

[DRIVEWAY]

Welp... my guess...

seven parts lawyer, two parts claims processor, one part general stupidity.


Let's add widespread racketeering, price fixing and fraud in the USA health care system.

[Dave Schwartz]

Dave, making it a right does not change the fact that "we" still have to pay for it. That remains the tough part.

Figure that part out and you can call it anything you want.

As long as equitable payment system is found ......therein lies the real problem

I cannot agree more. We MUST find a way to pay for it. Emphasis on "We" and "MUST" intentional.

"Must" in the sense that it has to get done.

"We" in the sense that "someone" has to pay for it.

Hey, if you can't raise the bridge, then you must lower the river. Medical costs are simply too expensive. Doctors, insurance companies, hospitals and drug companies simply make too much profit. (I forgot pharmaceutical companies in my earlier diatribe.)

I posted this a couple of years ago when we started debating health care here but I will post it again.

In the early 90s Maryland (or was it Delaware?) had one of the highest costs of healthcare in the nation at 127% of average. They passed a law requiring doctors to post their standard charges for common procedures in their waiting room. In one year, they went from 127% to 95% of national average.

The following year they went right back up because the AMA objected.


My point is that much medical pricing is arbitrary rather than cost-derived.

A friend of mine had to have a triple bypass. Cost: $240,000. Having no insurance but a $400,000 inheritance, he asked the question, :Can I get a discount for cash?" and the slashed the price to $120,000! Obviously, they are not losing money at $120,000, so why can't everyone get that price?


You want medical reform? Go to the source. Limit the amount of profit that can be made from any and all procedures and care. Have a lifetime maximum that a patient can be profited from.

There are all kinds of creative ways these problems could be attacked. But none of those ways will be considered because the guys with the lobbyists don't want change that hurts their bottom line.


That's why Obamacare is the joke that it is. You watch... in the long run it will BENEFIT the big four - doctors, hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceuticals - while hurting the people.

That is how it is done.

And don't think for a minute that the Republicans would do it any different. Their elections are supported by the same lobbyists.


Just my opinion.

Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[johnhannibalsmith]

Let's add widespread racketeering, price fixing and fraud in the USA health care system.

Sounds fair enough...

[hcap]

If it is his right to be provided with food and shelter, and you are able to provide it, then he is not committing a crime by taking it from you, after all, it is you who are interfering with his rights by not giving it to him. It would be you who is committing the crime. We've been down this road before. You have no understanding of what a right is. While food, shelter, and medical care are all great things that a society should do its best to help those who are unable to get those on their own acquire, they are not rights.If food and clothing and medical care is a right, then no one can be forced to pay for them, because it is their right to have them. If one group has to pay for them and another does not, it is not the right of the later group anymore.

Until you get it through your heads that a right cannot create a liability for someone else, you will never solve any problems. You have to stop whining and start thinking.
I am not suggesting anyone be forced into PAYING FOR a safety net. Rights are agreed to by the members of the society they belong to. Democratic societies vote on common rules and common behaviors either directly or through their representatives. AGAIN, I understand that no one must be forced to pay for others needs unless agreed upon prior. But I think you two are not recognizing that we have Already agreed on many "socialized" items already. This is not 18th century pre-French Revolution England.

The right for women to vote was enacted by constitutional amendment. The original bill of rights and constitution was ratified by representatives of the original colonies. Women could not vote before the early 20th century

Indeed any ones right to vote guarantees just that. But there are laws and ordinances regulating common voting places, practices and behaviors. For instance someone cannot force their decisions on another voter.

Right to free speech. Provides in most circumstances for citizens to say what they want, particularly criticisms of the government.
There are plenty of court precedents however limiting HOW those expressions are done. Do we all have the right to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? No. It would infringe on the safety of others. Therefore the above homeless person argument is a specious libertarian argument. And silly to the extreme. Literally.

Homeless people and others may be "entitled" as I believe to a basic safety net, and I may volunteer to help, but taking those provisions forcibly would violate the rights of others. Rights do not automatically allow anyone privilege to abuse or infringe on others

ONE MORE TIME. Rights are agreed to by the members of the society they belong to. So at the moment food, shelter and health care are not basic rights, and even if they were no one could forcibly take them.

[boxcar]

But before I begin what will probably be a lengthy post or even two...I want to laud LS for his excellent post on "rights"! Here is someone, ladies and gents, who has an excellent grasp on what a right is, as well as all its profound implications. Great post, LS! :ThmbUp:

Believe it or not I spent a good part of the night thinking about this societal problem of health care. My mind could not rest. It was working overtime until finally it came to me. Seriously. I think I have found (not a perfect solution probably), but one that is a lot better than we have currently and one that would be far superior to the one that was rammed down Americans' throats a few months ago. Conservatives will be happy to know that it was the free market and how this market works that provided the answers. And liberals will be happy to find out that the solution is a hybrid of socialized medicine which I borrowed from the military system. In short, I believe with this solution, everyone in society would have the best of both worlds. Now permit to elaborate a bit on "both worlds".

In this free-market, free-enterprise system there is this unwritten law (whether we realize it or not) that compels most of us to seek the kind of quality of goods and services that we buy that are commensurate with our means to pay. This is truly a "law" of the marketplace. This thread is about the Saudi king who flew here to the states to receive the best possible medical care his money could buy. (And I bet he wouldn't even balk at being treated by any Jewish doctor to boot. :D ) Of all the nations on the planet, he chose this one. Why? Because we do have the best care that money can buy. Of course, this is great news for the king because he has virtually unlimited wealth to spend on the best care. Sadly, most people do not.

The irrefutable fact of life is that most people in this country don't have unlimited resources. Not all of us can afford to walk into a Lexus dealership, for example, to buy the car of our dreams, can we? Nor will reasonable people believe for a moment that they can walk into the dealership and drive out with a Lexus for the cut rate price of a Ford Focus. If they could, it would certainly represent great value for the customers, but the dealership wouldn't make out so well, would it? In fact, the dealership would soon go out of business due to selling high quality autos below its costs.

Or another example, would be home buying -- well, at least before the social engineering-oriented Community Reinvestment Act was passed. :rolleyes: In the good ol' days most people would buy homes that would be within their means to pay. A person making only 50k a year would very likely not be approved for a $550K mortgage. The banks would rightfully be reluctant (to say the very least) at lending this person that kind of money. Banks would view that kind of loan as being incommensurate with the customer's means to pay it off. Again, reasonable consumers realize that they should limit their own personal choices of homes and locations to their ability to pay. This actually is tantamount to being a moral duty to act responsibly in order to avoid becoming a burden to society.

Most us conservatives find the concept of socialized medicine to do severe violence to our choices. Socialized medicine will infringe on our free choices in many cases, and we rightfully resent this in a free society. After all, the warp 'n' woof of a genuinely free society is a people's ability to choose freely, which also means to be free from coercion. The "unwritten law" of the free marketplace has become too ingrained into us. While, most of us realize that the current health care system is broken and is in need of repair, we conservatives want those fixes to be consistent with our beloved free enterprise system. We want to be able to continue to freely choose the quality of our health care coverage that is commensurate with our ability to pay for it. Why should people in lower economic classes below the Saudi king's, for example, forfeit their right to put this free market "law" into practice?

However, as Hcap and others have pointed out, the health care market is inefficient -- thanks largely to government intrusions into the free marketplace and all the overhead costs associated with administrative compliance with a myriad of federal and even state bureaucratic rules and regulations. Because governments, on all levels, have virtually no real knowledge on how to generate wealth, they have for the most part become as equally clueless on how to run a program efficiently AND cost-effectively. Again, in fairness to government, this is because of its lack of experience and any expertise whatsoever in creating wealth or even running a business for profit. But what governments know how to do well is confiscate wealth of those who know how to generate it through taxation laws. And this easy access to other people's money, through taxation, provides no incentives for the state to run any program efficiently and cost-effectively. However, there might be a light at the end of this seemingly dark tunnel. There might actually be a ray of hope because the federal government does run one aspect of its constitutionally-mandated responsibilities fairly well. Not perfectly. But still with a pretty decent degree of efficiency. This "responsibility" we all know at the U.S. Military. Therefore, maybe the smart thing to do is to provide a level of health care for the "poor" that is commensurate with their ability "to pay" by adopting the military model. This solution would seem to be eminently fair.

My wife is bugging me to get dressed to leave the house. So, I'm going to have to pick this up again when I return home. Sorry for the long post. But I want to lay out not so much the nuts and bolts, of this free market/hybrid solution, as much as its overall structure. But the more I considered my idea, the more I liked it because it would also make obsolete Medicare and Medicaid! After all, the ultimate goal, according to the Hcaps of the world, is efficiency in health care, so there would be no need to retain what we all know are inefficient programs.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Michael Savage has it right with Socialism. This political-economic system will never make anyone wealthy, except the Ruling Class and the Rich. I have expressed Savage's sentiments a little differently -- as the spreading or sharing of our misery. The government's demands on the "haves" keep coming non-stop. Because the "haves" are relieved of more and more our income (wealth), we have less money to take care or our personal Top Priorities in life, which do not include the masses. If we think of the relative importance of our personal responsibilities in terms of a Venn Diagram -- perhaps as circles, we'd have a few circles to consider in terms of those priorities.

The First Circle is "I". I am the the most important person in my life in terms of my personal responsibilities. As an adult, I have the moral duty to care for myself in order to avoid becoming a burden to others. I am the Top Priority in my life and rightfully so, if I want to remain independent. I have NO RIGHT to expect anyone else to take care of me or even to help me through life's struggles. This bears repeating: I HAVE NO RIGHT, human or God-given, to expect anyone to take care of Number One. In fact, if I ever think that I have some right to burden others, this attitude would speak to a serious moral deficiency in me.

The Second Circle significantly overlaps the first. This is the Immediate Family Circle and it's just as important as the first circle. I do have a moral duty to care for my own -- to provide for my own to the best of my ability. I don't want my family to become a financial burden to others, plus I also want to provide the best quality of life possible for them that would be commensurate with my means to pay. I don't want people outside my immediate family to determine what quality of life my family members should have. I want to be the one to assume full responsibility for my loved ones.

The Third Circle would consist of Extended Family and Friends. Certainly, we would have some moral duty to help with their needs to the best of our ability but not at the expense of lowering the quality of life for any extended period time for those in the above two circles. Sacrifices are certainly part of life and some times necessary to make whenever we care enough to want someone within this circle to gain victory over their struggles. But as individuals, we should get to choose when it's appropriate to sacrifice and when it may not be because only we know the needs our of immediate family.

The Fourth Circle consist of our Neighbor, which in the biblical sense is anyone with whom we cross paths -- anyone with whom we come into personal contact. According to scripture, this is where our moral duty to our fellow man ends. We have no duty to love or extend charity to nameless, faceless strangers, most especially through a proxy known as the U.S. government, which consists of more strangers that we can't really get to know well. Yet, we're expected to blindly trust this proxy to be good stewards with our hard-earned money! :rolleyes:

The Fifth Circle consist of the Masses. In the "wisdom" of government, we are told that we have a moral duty to supply for the needs of the masses -- perfect strangers who we don't know and can't know. And because the government is doing all in its power to turn our Personal Priorities upside down
for the Collective Good by placing more and more monetary demands upon the Producers in this society, we Producers, with our limited resources, have fewer of those financial resources to take care of our own the way we want. The Producers are becoming poorer because in supplying the needs of the "Have Nots", we're becoming more like them! The government is increasingly moving to a one-size-fits-all mentality when formulating domestic public policies. If something is good enough for those in this Fifth Circle, then it's also good enough for all those within the above more important circles. Collectivism at its finest! :rolleyes:

Because of the decidedly socialist direction our Marxist-American politicians and friends have taken us, the vast Middle Class is rapidly disappearing because of all the government entitlement programs which the Producers in this country are forced to subsidize. Soon we'll become a two-class society -- Rich and Poor. And this is the goal of Marxism: Keep all the Poor beholding to the Rich. Keep the Dogs begging for crumbs at their Masters' tables. And then the Masters will be guaranteed that the Dogs would never bite the hand that feeds them.

So, now that we have seen clearly what the problem is and why Socialism is doomed to fail, as it is currently failing around the world, we know the only effects this form of government can have on our lives is to make everyone as equally as miserable as possible. (Call this Equal Outcomes.) The only thing that can happen is that the Poverty of the Poor will trickle up to the higher economic classes, save for the ultra rich. This is inevitable as the government keeps increasing its demands, on the behalf of the Have Nots upon the Producers (or Haves) in this country. I don't know anyone who has a Money Tree in their back yard. The Haves' resources are finite, but you would never know it the way the government wants to spend us into oblivion.

I promise that in the next and final installment, I will reveal my "brilliant" solution to the health care problem. It is perfectly consistent with that "unwritten law" that seems to drive most consumers' buying decisions in the private sector. And what works so well in the private sector should work just fine in the public one, providing the plan is executed properly.

Boxcar

[lamboguy]

wowser

[Native Texan III]

A nation that has pretensions to be the top nation in the World can be judged on the quality of care, education and security its citizens provide to its other citizens, rich or poor. Right/ Left/ Republican/Democrat/rights/duties who cares about the semantics? If someone is in need and I have the means and opportunity to help I will help - full stop. That we cannot get any further on actually putting something acceptable in place is a shame on our nation and it is killing people, robbing people by rampant profiteering, bankrupting people and not enabling many to reach their full potential in life and that is a sin.

Myth : The United States has the best health care system in the world.

Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation (which is why a Saudi might come here for money no object treatment but most prefer Harley St in London)

[boxcar]

A nation that has pretensions to be the top nation in the World can be judged on the quality of care, education and security its citizens provide to its other citizens, rich or poor. Right/ Left/ Republican/Democrat/rights/duties who cares about the semantics? If someone is in need and I have the means and opportunity to help I will help - full stop. That we cannot get any further on actually putting something acceptable in place is a shame on our nation and it is killing people, robbing people by rampant profiteering, bankrupting people and not enabling many to reach their full potential in life and that is a sin.

Myth : The United States has the best health care system in the world.

Fact One: The United States ranks 23rd in infant mortality, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990


Fact Two: The United States ranks 20th in life expectancy for women down from 1st in 1945 and 13th in 1960
Fact Three: The United States ranks 21st in life expectancy for men down from 1st in 1945 and 17th in 1960.
Fact Four: The United States ranks between 50th and 100th in immunizations depending on the immunization. Overall US is 67th, right behind Botswana
Fact Five: Outcome studies on a variety of diseases, such as coronary artery disease, and renal failure show the United States to rank below Canada and a wide variety of industrialized nations.
Conclusion: The United States ranks poorly relative to other industrialized nations in health care despite having the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure of any industrialized nation (which is why a Saudi might come here for money no object treatment but most prefer Harley St in London)


All your stats are meaningless unless interpreted within the context of other relevant statistics. Nice try, though. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

According to the cost charts posted above, an MRI or CT scan in the USA costs three times as much as it does in Canada.

How is that possible?

It is not subsidized by the government. That's the difference. The Government only pays so much when they are paying for it. Just like Medicare has limits on what they will pay. The Doctors in Socialized Medicine know that they can only collect from one source and that source will only pay so much.

The Government sponsored MRI or Cat Scan has almost no threat of a lawsuit etc. There are limits on what can be collected. You may see these as benefits, but in the long run there is no incentive to own a CAT Scan machine, or an MRI machine. They don't make any money. So then there becomes a shortage etc..........

[hcap]

All your stats are meaningless unless interpreted within the context of other relevant statistics. Nice try, though. :rolleyes:
BoxcarIt is not subsidized by the government. That's the difference. The Government only pays so much when they are paying for it. Just like Medicare has limits on what they will pay. The Doctors in Socialized Medicine know that they can only collect from one source and that source will only pay so much.Bottom line is THE BOTTOM LINE. The following is in context and is the definitive answer as to the effectiveness of how health care dollars work. Or don't.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/13325/healthcare_costs_and_us_competitiveness.html
The United States spends an estimated $2 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average, and yet ranks with Turkey and Mexico as the only OECD countries without universal health coverage. Some analysts say an increasing number of U.S. businesses are less competitive globally because of ballooning healthcare costs. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses.

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/universal.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/images/oecd_2007_health_gdp.gif



Public share of health expenditure, OECD countries, 2005. By percentage of total health expenditures.

http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/images/public_health_percent.gif

[hcap]

This adds to the problem.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AM87lFW-eY8/S5KtwtCmXbI/AAAAAAAAAIc/MsD66l0mbgg/1960-2007.+Line+chart.gif

So box will you illustrate your NEW military based health plan with real life numbers, or a bunch of theoretical Venn diagrams?

Remember to spice it up with more anti-lib rhetoric.

[slewis]

Because of the decidedly socialist direction our Marxist-American politicians and friends have taken us, the vast Middle Class is rapidly disappearing because of all the government entitlement programs which the Producers in this country are forced to subsidize.
Boxcar

You've said some dumb ass things before but this speech is the cherry on top of the cake.

I'm not even going to post stats that totally disprove this nonsense so with bible tucked under you're smelly armpit, you keep believing yourself.

BTW, name a few "entitlement" programs that are hurting "the producers".

Zero Mostel has nothing on you.

[slewis]

This adds to the problem.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AM87lFW-eY8/S5KtwtCmXbI/AAAAAAAAAIc/MsD66l0mbgg/1960-2007.+Line+chart.gif

So box will you illustrate your NEW military based health plan with real life numbers, or a bunch of theoretical Venn diagrams?

Remember to spice it up with more anti-lib rhetoric.


This chart is due to Marxists-Americans who are flooding the Hopsitals without insurance (a court mandated "entitlement":lol: ) and putting severe addition strain on "the producers".

[hcap]

From PBS...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/july-dec09/insurance_1006.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/images/chart_health.gif

[slewis]

The Government sponsored MRI or Cat Scan has almost no threat of a lawsuit etc. There are limits on what can be collected. You may see these as benefits, but in the long run there is no incentive to own a CAT Scan machine, or an MRI machine. They don't make any money. So then there becomes a shortage etc..........

So you really believe that medical practices with MRI and Cat (and other high tech units) in say, Germany, dont make profit?

Germany instituted medical coverage as a RIGHT to all it's citizens, (I believe guaranteed by their constitution) I think in the early 90's.

It's 2010. So tell me Ralph, what year do you expect their medical system to fall apart? When will there be no MRI's in Deutchland?

[Jay Trotter]

blah, blah, blah, blah ...
Boxcar

“It was once said that the moral test of government is how that
government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;
those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are
in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

-- Hubert H. Humphrey

What part of this statement do you disagree with Boxmeister?

[rastajenk]

I would ask, why is that a function of government? If Hubie's quote replaced society for government, it would be a more fair observation. It is the extension of government (inefficient and political) into the most private, personal aspects of life that most offends conservatives; not the goal of providing for those less fortunate.

[hcap]

Common guys, anything German or from a lib like Humphrey will be automatically dismissed :cool:

Funny tho', Obamacare, for the most part a republican plan offered back in the 90s as a counter to Hillarycare, also gets dismissed. Go figure

I would ask, why is that a function of government? If Hubie's quote replaced society for government, it would be a more fair observation. It is the extension of government (inefficient and political) into the most private, personal aspects of life that most offends conservatives; not the goal of providing for those less fortunate
According to what I have been posting, all other western industrialized countries do a better job on health care than we do. And their governments play a far greater role in administrating those plans.

[rastajenk]

Those who would sacrifice freedom for health care deserve neither! I think that's what Big Ben Franklin said.

[boxcar]

I have to confess that as brilliant as I think I may be at times :D , I had my share of help in coming up with what I think would be a viable solution to real, meaningful health care reform in place of this ObamaCare garbage which amounts to nothing more than a redistribution of wealth scam. For example, the sage advice of Ben Franklin (I think it was) stuck in the forefront of my mind when he essentially said (to paraphrase), we should do all we can to make the poor as miserable as possible in their poverty.. At first blush, this may sound a little harsh, even cold hearted. But when you stop to ponder the implications to those words, you'll find that they had to have been uttered by a very warm, compassionate, caring human being. For why would we want to make the poor comfortable in their poverty? What good would that serve? What incentive would they have to ever formulate an exit strategy out of their poverty, if we did not endeavor to make them uncomfortable in it!? Franklin wasn't advocating suffering for the poor by refusing them aid in their plight, but rather that we shouldn't make them at ease in their poverty by communicating to them any sense of endless entitlement to public assistance.

It's also evident to me that Franklin did not think that the ultimate measure of a nation's morality or righteousness was to be found in our charity to the poor as much as it would be in the pride the people took in the virtues of their resourcefulness, industriousness and self-reliance. The true measure of a society's morality would be found in its people's reluctance or even unwillingness to become burdens to others unnecessarily. To be sure, it would be difficult to find too many instances of low self-esteem problems with such a people who took this kind of national pride in themselves!

With all this in mind, plus important biblical principles as well as the "unwritten consumer's law" that is ever present in a free market environment, all these came together to give birth to an idea that I think has some merit. However, I'll say at the very outset that it probably would never be adopted or even seriously considered by the elite Ruling Class in D.C. because of its relative simplicity and because the plan itself would essentially depoliticize the health care issue. I don't believe the Ruling Class would adopt this plan any more than they would repeal the 16th Amendment and adopt the Fair Tax system of taxation. With either issue, I believe all the committed Marxist-Leninists in D.C. would first toss their loved ones under a speeding train before relinquishing this kind of political power over The People. After all, we are talking here about hard-core left wing extremists in many cases. But I digress...let's move on.

The Overall Plan

Since the government has been feigning so much interest in providing "affordable health care" to those working people who can't afford the care in the Private Sector or to non-workers who have no care available to them, save for emergency treatment under Medicaid, I think the government itself should get into the Health Care Business in a larger way and provide direct help to those who choose to participate in the "public option". What I'm saying is that I'm all for the Public Option, providing the government eliminates the "middleman", i.e. the entire Health Care Industry in the Private Sector, including citizens who wish to remain and participate in the Private Sector to receive their heath care services. Under this plan, the government would pull out of the Private Sector and allow all the heath care-related industries within to work out their own costs cutting measures. (More on this later.)

The U.S. government is already in the heath care business in a very direct way within the military and its numerous V.A. Hospital operations. What the government should do over the course of several years is phase in Public Health Care Facilities, perhaps starting out with Public Health Outpatient Clinics, then perhaps military-like Infirmaries for short stays and then to full blown Hospitals for longer treatments. While all these facilities are being gradually phased in, current socialistic programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would simultaneously be phased out. This new Public Option would completely replace Medicare and Medicaid. And Social Security is an illegal and morally-reprehensible Ponzi Scheme anyway (at least such a scheme would be in the Private Sector). Citizens would be required, however, to choose from a menu of retirement plans within the Private Sector for which they would have direct control over and would be required to participate in. (This is to ensure that no one unnecessarily becomes a burden to society. I think it's called Taking Personal Responsibility.) Eventually shutting down Social Security would be an effective way to starve an insatiable Welfare State Beast, plus retirees would live a lot better lives by investing their money in the Private Sector instead of with the government. Control would be back in the hands of The People where it belongs.

Getting Started

Since living in this free country is a great privilege, I would have no qualms whatsoever in reinstating the Draft! I think every young, able-bodied man and woman in this country should be ready and willing to give something back to their country -- in meaningful service -- not the communistic community organizing, politically-driven nonsense. Young people could choose to serve in the military or in a Civilian Corps -- perhaps called the Civilian Medical Corps. However, the U.S. government would have the final word on where a conscript would serve, depending on the government's needs. For example, to launch my idea of a Public Option, doctors and nurses and all manner of other health care professionals and graduates would be needed in a hurry to get the PO off the ground. All conscripts would serve for four years and would, of course, have the option of reenlisting. (Many Peace Corps-type people could very well make a career out of Public Service and become full time government employees in the Civilian Medical Corps.)

Funding

With our taxes, of course. However, since the Big 3 Entitlement Programs would be completely phased out over time, we might actually see an eventual reduction in our taxes, since the Public Option would become a very streamlined, efficient operation! This would be so because the government would be dealing with their patients DIRECTLY. No middleman! No private sector doctors. No insurance companies. No unnecessary bureaucracy. Nada. Nothing in between the government-employed doctors/nurses and patients. And this is what all you liberals are craving for, right? EFFICIENCY in health care in order to reduce costs? Right?

Not only would the PO run efficiently but the entire Public Health Care System, including all the facilities that would eventually be built, would all be modern but NO FRILLS operations. The operative phrase here is "NO FRILLS". Nothing fancy. Everything is basic. Everything is cut rate, bare bones and should be billed and marketed that way by the government because we don't want the poor to become too comfortable in their poverty, do we? All we want to do is provide levels of service that would be commensurate with each patient's ability to pay.

The Private Sector

Since the U.S. government would be pulling its big fat nose out from under the Health Care Industry's tent within the Private Sector, it would be incumbent upon the Private Sector to thoroughly examine all avenues of services that the various providers sell to the public to see where costs could be cut. The first obvious area would be administrative costs, since the Private Sector would no longer have to deal with government bureaucracies.
However, I think the government and leaders in each major private sector should meet and decide together what areas costs could be cut so as to save the public as much money as possible. Major costs cuts should be possible. And that would certainly work to consumers' advantage.

Major Benefits to The Plan

Obviously, The People on both sides of the health care issue win. It's a win-win for everyone -- except the U.S. Government, of course. (The last thing the government would want is to depoliticize health care.)

Conservative, capitalism-loving, free-market-loving folks win because we'd get to keep our choices. No one would be forcing us to do anything we don't want. We get to be like the Saudi king in that we get to choose the level of service that is commensurate with our ability to pay. Or for that matter, no one would be forcing any of us to buy coverage if we don't want to. We get to maintain the integrity of our choices. And this is what true freedom is all about.

Likewise, our liberal friends who aren't so enamored with Capitalism and the free-market system can opt in or or out of the Public Option. It's their choice. Now the supposed gazillions who can't afford health care currently, would probably opt in to the Public Option. I would think that most of those people would be able to contribute something toward their medical treatments. The government would have to perform detailed background checks through the IRS, etc. to determine each patient's ability to pay. All on a case-by-case basis.

I would also think that within the Public Sector the state could offer different levels of medical care depending on what the patient is willing to contribute. If someone is willing to contribute the "max" (whatever that may be), he would be entitled to the best care under the Public Option. He, in essence, would be treated the same way as if he were in the Private Sector. He would get what he paid for. He would receive services commensurate with his ability to pay.

On the other hand, those at the opposite end of the "ability to pay" spectrum who can't afford to pay anything, they would receive minimum service. If such people became very ill and required expensive treatment or prolonged treatment, then such people would have to be referred by their doctor to some government err..."advisory panel"? This panel would determine the amount of rationed care the patient would receive or even if he's worthy of receiving any additional care. In either case, this kind of patient, too, would essentially receive the level of service that would be commensurate with his ability to pay.

In short, the consumer's "unwritten law" would be honored in both the Private and Public Sectors and everyone would be treated fairly and with equity. Everyone would receive the level of service that would be consistent with their ability to pay. This "law" is operative in all aspects of the free market, so nothing changes. I believe my Plan is eminently fair. Everyone receives the level of service they're able to pay for -- the very same way the Saudi king is doing.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

“It was once said that the moral test of government is how that
government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;
those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are
in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped."

-- Hubert H. Humphrey

What part of this statement do you disagree with Boxmeister?

I presented a superior test that was implied by Ben Franklin's advice about how to treat the poor. That test would be markedly superior because it has to do more with the national character of a People rather than with a government. Peoples ulitmately make nations. Not governments.

Boxcar
P.S. Happy Blah, Blah Day back at ya. :D

[hcap]

For example, the sage advice of Ben Franklin (I think it was) stuck in the forefront of my mind when he essentially said (to paraphrase), we should do all we can to make the poor as miserable as possible in their poverty.. I am glads to see that you at least recognize THAT THERE is a PROBLEM. However Franklyn also supported a proportional Tax System...

.as a Tax, and perhaps the most equal of all Taxes, since it depreciated in the Hands of the Holders of the Money, and thereby taxed them in proportion to the Sums they hold and the Time they held it, which is generally in proportion to Mens Wealth. (Franklin to Thomas Ruston, October 9, 1780)
As did Tom Pane

..Rights of Man, Part the Second, Combining Principle and Practice in February 1792. It detailed a representative government with enumerated social programs to remedy the numbing poverty of commoners through progressive tax measures.

But the question really is why reinvent the wheel? Particularly in your quirky ideological bible based way, when working efficient models exist that we can use as examples to build on?

[hcap]

Don't you agree that successful models should be examined? What would be the problem adapting the Japanese or German system?

Taking one observation by Franklyn, which admittedly does has an element of truth as a basis for "hard love" health care, might not be the wisest approach. One can usually s find individual excerpts to justify ones preconceived world view.

Lincoln's Preparation for Greatness by Paul Simon. It quotes a letter Lincoln wrote defending his support for a tax increase.

...I believe it can be sustained, because it does not increase the tax upon the "many poor" but upon the "wealthy few" by taxing the land that is worth $50 or $100 per acre, in proportion to its value, instead of, as heretofore, no more than that which was worth $5 per acre. This valuable land, as is well known, belongs, not to the poor, but to the wealthy citizen.

On the other hand, the wealthy can not justly complain, because the change is equitable within itself, and also a sine qua non to a compliance with the Constitution. If, however, the wealthy should, regardless of the justness of the complaint, complain of the change, it is still to be remembered, that they are not sufficiently numerous to carry the elections.

Very Respectfully,
A. Lincoln

[hcap]

Speaking of 'tough love" health care.
Here is an expert on 'tough love" unemployment benefits.

"You know," Delay said, "there is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits keeps people from going and finding jobs. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don't look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out."

Hope he remembers that while bending over in the prison shower reaching for the soap

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Hope he remembers that while bending over in the prison shower reaching for the soap

Liberal justice? Getting ramrodded for not supporting extending unemployment benefits? Boy you make things awfully personal and attempt at some odd correlations.

[Tom]

Hope he remembers that while bending over in the prison shower reaching for the soap

You do know that all those standing behind him will be libs, right?

[Dave Schwartz]

Boxie,

So, you advocate taking the largest contributors to Social Security in history - and some of the most needy - and depriving them of what they paid for?

What happens to all of those people who are 65-75, currently living on a fixed income, of which social security probably probably comprises 100%? Do you propose to tell them to get jobs?


Dave

[Greyfox]

I am the Top Priority in my life and rightfully so, if I want to remain independent. I have NO RIGHT to expect anyone else to take care of me or even to help me through life's struggles. This bears repeating: I HAVE NO RIGHT, human or God-given, to expect anyone to take care of Number One.





I like your attitude of not wanting anyone else to help you through life's struggles. However, the reality is "No Man is an Island."
Everyday people help you whether you are aware of it or not. From the butcher who cuts your meat to the man who brings your mail.
However, there is one premise beneath your:
"I have no right to expect anyone else to take care of me..."

You are presuming that you will always be physically capable and compos mentis.
The time may come when you are neither physically capable or compos mentis (compos non mentis.)
What do we do with you then Boxy?

(Otherwise, in a nutshell, you appear to be advocating for what is referred to in the literature as "A Two Tiered Medical System." The U.S. already has a two tiered health care system, but the majority of the population can't access the public part.)

[boxcar]

I am glads to see that you at least recognize THAT THERE is a PROBLEM.

You need to keep up better. I have always recognized the need for real reform -- free market style, however!

However Franklyn also supported a proportional Tax System...


As did Tom Pane

Wow. I'm nearly impressed. Two out of how many....? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


But the question really is why reinvent the wheel? Particularly in your quirky ideological bible based way, when working efficient models exist that we can use as examples to build on?

Are you implying that Military-VA model is inefficient when compared to Cuba's model, for example? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Are you saying that the U.S. government doesn't know how to run its direct-care medical facilities that are under its control?

Why "reinvent" the wheel? Because my system would far more equitable since all participants in either sector would be in a win-win situation.

My plan would be a lot more consistent with free-market principles, especially that "unwritten law" to which we're all intimately familiar and accustomed to dealing with.

My plan would do no violence to anyone's fundamental liberty, which is FREE CHOICE. Any plan that protects the integrity of this liberty is automatically superior to those that fail to do this.

My plan would be exceedingly more efficient and, therefore, significantly more cost-effective because there would be minimal bureaucracy, as one would expect when an entity deals directly with the public.

My plan would minimize socialistic, anti-freedom programs. It would severely restrict the government's role and involvement in socialistic-welfare state-type policies that could only result in heavy taxation.

My plan would result in lower consumer costs in the Private Sector.

My plan would eventually reduce taxes since the "big 3" would be phased out.

My plan would largely depoliticize health care, which is how it should be.

My plan would be a lot more straightforward and transparent. No politician would have to deceive anyone about costs or quality or care because the plan would revolve around "generic", non-frills, bare-bones care that would be available to all who have little or no ability to contribute anything toward their own care. Like everyone else in society and just like that Saudi king, they would receive the level of care that would be commensurate with their financial means. What could be more fair than this!? What!?

Finally, my plan would provide encouragement and incentives for Public Option participants to improve their lot in life, which in turn would build character.

Anything else you want to know?

Boxcar
P.S. Forgive the use of all my "mys". This plan really isn't about me. :lol:

[hcap]

Wow. I'm nearly impressed. Two out of how many....?Don't forget Abe Lincoln.

Point being I doubt you can encapsulate
Ben Franklin s' philosophy re: health care based on a historical snippet. Tough love does not a health care system make. No way you can motivate someone ill or with a broken leg or emphysema to will themselves better. (Perhaps attention to preventative steps might improve). But valid medical treatment is required in most acute situations. I sincerely doubt willing yourself a kidney transplant will work.

The VA military model is a "Social program" Very "socialistic" in fact. There is almost no involvement of the free market. But I congratulate you on using a social model funded entirely by government that has lower administrative costs than any private insurer. And one that covers ALL service personal EQUALLY. Level of treatment based on financial ability of poor soldiers or rich soldiers is the same. Are you suggesting that those who received equal severity of battlefield injuries be treated based on their ability to pay what co-payments?? Then if a Saudi King somehow did enlist in the US army he would defacto get preferred treatment over a kid from the slums east ST Louis?

Your fanatical belief in the inadvisable hand is almost as literal minded and knee jerking automatic as your literal interpretation of the bible. Sometimes "greed is not good". I believe I have demonstrated this in terms of bottom line costs and efficacy over and over agauin using various charts and graphs from reliable sources of real world data. Where may I ask are your real world facts and stats to confirm your 1/2 baked contentions?

[fast4522]

Abe Lincoln was a real man who did not want to own slaves, he said if you make people your property then you have to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Today we have those who promise to care of us for the rest of our lives in exchange of enslaving us with debt that can not be paid off. In my books President Lincoln knew more about life than your average egg sucking liberal. To saddle future generations to pay for health care is more than egg sucking, you guessed right its filthy.

[hcap]

Abe Lincoln was a real man who did not want to own slaves, he said if you make people your property then you have to take care of them for the rest of their lives. Today we have those who promise to care of us for the rest of our lives in exchange of enslaving us with debt that can not be paid off. In my books President Lincoln knew more about life than your average egg sucking liberal. To saddle future generations to pay for health care is more than egg sucking, you guessed right its filthy.

Hey bunky, other western democracies pay less for health care then we do. I imagine their children will as well. Stick to filth and farts where you at least know your stuff.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/1332...titiveness.html
The United States spends an estimated $2 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. According to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United States spends two-and-a-half times more than the OECD average, and yet ranks with Turkey and Mexico as the only OECD countries without universal health coverage. Some analysts say an increasing number of U.S. businesses are less competitive globally because of ballooning healthcare costs. U.S. economic woes have heightened the burden of healthcare costs both on individuals and businesses.


From PBS...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalh...rance_1006.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/globalhealth/images/chart_health.gif

[fast4522]

Few care about your fancy charts and they consider who exactly is posting them, a zero creditability person.

[hcap]

Few care about your fancy charts and they consider who exactly is posting them, a zero creditability person.You are hopeless. Buh Bye

[fast4522]

How is crap and fade working for you? Is uncle Al Gore still your fav?

[Tom]

What those neat little charts with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back fail to take into account is the lifestyles of people. Might explain the lower life expectancy and the infant mortality. Government regs also help influence the cost of health care. A lot more than three colors and a shading can explain.

[boxcar]

Don't forget Abe Lincoln.

Point being I doubt you can encapsulate
Ben Franklin s' philosophy re: health care based on a historical snippet

Yes! The PRINCIPLE is still valid! In fact, it's a very RIGHTEOUS principle. And did not the apostle say that if someone doesn't work, neither let him eat?

It serves no good purpose to make the poor comfortable or at ease in their poverty. It doesn't work for their betterment, nor does it work for society.

Tough love does not a health care system make. No way you can motivate someone ill or with a broken leg or emphysema to will themselves better.

You are either more dull of understanding than I could even imagine or you're deliberately being obtuse.

Franklin's principle (and even the Apostle's) are valid because the goal behind that kind of tough love is to motivate, energize and provide every incentive for the poor not to heal themselves when they're sick :bang: :bang: -- but to avail themselves, in such situations of better care, by making a genuine effort to improve their lives -- in fact of the best care possible that would be consistent with their means to pay. But... this better quality of care would only be available to them if they strive to improve their lot in life.

Tell me, 'cap: you find this principle to be morally wrong? You actually have a problem with Franklin's advice on how to deal with the poor?

The VA military model is a "Social program" Very "socialistic" in fact. There is almost no involvement of the free market. But I congratulate you on using a social model funded entirely by government that has lower administrative costs than any private insurer.

Well, thank you. I take that as a compliment. :D

So...you do endorse the VA-Military model, then? Is this right? You believe, as I do, that the government does a pretty decent job (not perfect, but overall a decent job) in dealing DIRECTLY with its patients to provide them decent quality of care? You're on board with this? You're okay with this?

one that covers ALL service personal EQUALLY. Level of treatment based on financial ability of poor soldiers or rich soldiers is the same.

In the service, there is no such thing in the context of the military as "rich or poor" because all are employed by the government. As you have conceded, the military is a sub-culture or even a sub-society. It is indeed a "socialistic" model. They have in common one employer. The only reason I chose this model is because the government performs decently as a DIRECT CARE PROVIDER.

My second reason for choosing this VA-Military model is to show this model could be employed successfully within the context of a capitalistic, free-market, free-enterprise economic system -- of which the VA-Military model itself is NOT. As the employer of professional soldiers, the government (or more specifically the Military) is legally and morally obligated to care for their own. Tell me, Mr. 'cap: Who would join the military if the government didn't provide health care services to its "employees"? :bang: :bang:

Are you suggesting that those who received equal severity of battlefield injuries be treated based on their ability to pay what co-payments?? Then if a Saudi King somehow did enlist in the US army he would defacto get preferred treatment over a kid from the slums east ST Louis?

You're extrapolating way too much from my VA-Military model. I never even remotely hinted that the government alter, change or modify any if its existing policies or procedures for military or even ex-military personnel. Military personnel are in high risk jobs and they deserve the finest treatment that we can give to them and here's why (drum roll, please)...

THEY HAVE EARNED IT BY CONTRIBUTING THEIR TIME AND TALENTS TO THE MILITARY AND WITH THEIR COMMITMENT TO SERVE FOR "X" MANY YEARS.

In fact, even within the context of this "socialistic society" of yours, not only do military personnel earn their keep, but those who don't -- the military doesn't want! The military itself won't tolerate deadbeats, the slothful or the irresponsible for very long. Habitual failure to perform to military standards, to follow policies, to observe protocols and to adhere to procedures will ultimately result in termination or dismal. (Well, in the military these things are called "discharges".) Funny how this works in your socialistic little society. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Your fanatical belief in the inadvisable hand is almost as literal minded and knee jerking automatic as your literal interpretation of the bible. Sometimes "greed is not good". I believe I have demonstrated this in terms of bottom line costs and efficacy over and over agauin using various charts and graphs from reliable sources of real world data. Where may I ask are your real world facts and stats to confirm your 1/2 baked contentions?

Don't go spastic on me, 'cap. Stay with me. I don't want to lose you. I mean...what in the world did you mean by "inadvisable hand'? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, since the godless world don't subscribe to righteous principles, there are no stats or facts to support my idea. It's never been tried. All the world follows is its godless, human-secularist instincts. And these, in turn, drive them away from freedom-loving principles.

Who knows? The genius that I AM :D might account for me being the only one under the sun to come up with a such a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism and achieving the preservation of our Individual Liberties -- the most fundamental of these being CHOICE. I mean talk about having the best of both worlds! :jump: :jump: :jump: Everyone WINS! In fact, this reminds me -- I forgot to mention another extremely important advantage to my Free-Market/Socialized Medicine Solution. But now that I've had brunch and I'm working on my fourth cup of coffee -- it has come to me. Mr. 'cap, can you spell....

C-O-M-P-E-T-I-T-I-O-N ????

Now, tell me, 'cap, what is there not like about competition? By the government adopting my VA-Military model and becoming the direct provider of care to all those who cannot afford such care in the Private Sector, the government also becomes the direct competitor to all its counterparts in the in the Private Sector! :jump: :jump: :jump: Would not this be a GREAT thing!? I mean...you liberals love competition, don't you? Aren't you always bashing the Wal-Marts of the world for driving out competition? Well, by the government entering the Free Market to compete directly with the health care providers in the Private Sector, would that not give every incentive to these latter providers to provide the highest quality care possible at the lowest prices possible? I mean, 'cap...tell me how can The People of this country lose? It's not possible. Everyone wins, wins, wins, wins.

People who can afford to pay for their own privately-provided services keep what they have and continue to pay for the level of service they choose and that is commensurate with their financial means.

People who can't afford to pay for their own can avail themselves to the multi-tiered Public Option and also receive care that is consistent with their ability to pay.

And even though the government wouldn't get to politicize its health care system very much, nonetheless the Public Sector would actually get the opportunity to concretely demonstrate its compassion (for once) for the poor by directly providing for their health care needs.

And finally, even the Private Sector health care providers win. Competition is good for the "cleansing of the soul". Health care providers would be forced, by the competing Public Sector, to "repent" of its wasteful, fraudulent or even greedy ways and run a tighter ship. Run a lean and mean ship by providing the best services they could at the best prices possible. Anything less than this type of industry "cleansing" would soon drive Private Sector customers over to the Public Option.

Everyone Wins! Go ahead...tell me I'm not a genius. I dare you! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

What those neat little charts with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back fail to take into account is the lifestyles of people. Might explain the lower life expectancy and the infant mortality. Government regs also help influence the cost of health care. A lot more than three colors and a shading can explain.Utter nonsense. No they explained it quite well.

When you guys have nothing substantial to say, you pass around cliched platitudes amongst yourselves.

[boxcar]

Utter nonsense. No they explained it quite well.

When you guys have nothing substantial to say, you pass around cliched platitudes amongst yourselves.

Well, come on down, Dr. Spock, and tackle my last post. I'm dying to hear all the "substantial" rebuttals YOU have. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Yes! The PRINCIPLE is still valid! In fact, it's a very RIGHTEOUS principle. And did not the apostle say that if someone doesn't work, neither let him eat?Spare me your right wing political interpretation of the bible. Even the Devil can quote Scripture, and you do.

1-You have not explained how the VA military model incorporates the free market in your 1/2 or 1/4 baked plan. And you have no cogent explanation why it would improve matters at all. Maybe you would sell fast food concessions in VA hospitals to McDonalds or KFC so our soldiers can eat wholesome junk foods? Hey, why not DO the same for our public schools?

2- YOU SAY "But... this better quality of care would only be available to them (THE POOR )if they strive to improve their lot in life."... So a 55 year old poor man with a failing kidney must go to night school to train for non- existent jobs before he can be treated? Or a poor woman with breast cancer must do what in order to receive medical aid? Details please on how your tough love silliness heals a broken rib.


3-So...you do endorse the VA-Military model, then? Is this right? You believe, as I do, that the government does a pretty decent job (not perfect, but overall a decent job) in dealing DIRECTLY with its patients to provide them decent quality of care? You're on board with this? You're okay with this?
Yes this a great example of a single payer system. Yes I do endorse it and you would be better to use it as is for the model of your plan. You will not be able to improve on it by making the impoverished jump thru' hoops. You will do better to motivate the health care professionals treating them. Better training ?

4-Why should anyone prefer your plan over existing real world models like the VA or health care systems in Japan or Germany?
Your plan HAS no real world data. Probably because it is so absurd and la la landish no one would consider it from jump. Certainly no health care professional.

I have some experience with engineering prototypes. And 2 US patents. I remember distinctly trying to explain a new concept to a patent attorney. Even after showing some preliminary drawings, I continued explaining verbally my idea. Had a lot of trouble being persuasive. Resorted to waving my hands frantically in the air saying " no like this,...and like this... no,no I mean about this shape and construction.....and....

I think you are doing a lot of vigorous and very " frantic hand waving"

No decipherable derails in your plan and no preliminary drawings. Just a vague sketch that has no real world data to back up anything you say. And what you say is not at all clear.

One more time.
Your fanatical belief in the invisible hand is almost as literal minded and knee jerking automatic as your literal interpretation of the bible. Sometimes "greed is not good"

[hcap]

This bares repeating for those newbies on this board who may not be familiar with our resident megalomaniacWho knows? The genius that I AM might account for me being the only one under the sun to come up with a such a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism Who knows? The genius that I AM might account for me being the only one under the sun to come up with a such a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism Who knows? The genius that I AM might account for me being the only one under the sun to come up with a such a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism Who knows? The genius that I AM might account for me being the only one under the sun to come up with a such a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :cool:

[Tom]

Utter nonsense. No they explained it quite well.

When you guys have nothing substantial to say, you pass around cliched platitudes amongst yourselves.

OK, just we get this straight, you are going on record as saying:

1. Lifestyle choices have no effect on the life spans of people.
2. Infant mortality is not increased by unfit mothers using drugs and alcohol.
3. Government regulations do not affect the cost of health care.

Correct?

[boxcar]

Spare me your right wing political interpretation of the bible. Even the Devil can quote Scripture, and you do.

Since when have you come to believe in the Devil? Have you seen him? Have you talked with him?

1-You have not explained how the VA military model incorporates the free market in your 1/2 or 1/4 baked plan. And you have no cogent explanation why it would improve matters at all. Maybe you would sell fast food concessions in VA hospitals to McDonalds or KFC so our soldiers can eat wholesome junk foods? Hey, why not DO the same for our public schools?

You have it backwards! Why am I not surprised!? The Free Market incorporates the VA-Military model into it. :bang:

Yes, I have. It's very simple. You take the VA-Military model and transform it to a Free Market operation. The VA-Military model would essentially adopt and apply Free Market rules to its operations. No rocket science necessary to get this bad boy off the ground!

2- YOU SAY "But... this better quality of care would only be available to them (THE POOR )if they strive to improve their lot in life."... So a 55 year old poor man with a failing kidney must go to night school to train for non- existent jobs before he can be treated? Or a poor woman with breast cancer must do what in order to receive medical aid? Details please on how your tough love silliness heals a broken rib.

You're being blatantly dishonest by cherry-picking my words in order to quote me out of context. Shame on you. You're behaving worse than your spiritual father in whom you have suddenly come to believe. :rolleyes:

Yes this a great example of a single payer system. Yes I do endorse it and you would be better to use it as is for the model of your plan. You will not be able to improve on it by making the impoverished jump thru' hoops. You will do better to motivate the health care professionals treating them. Better training ?

Oh...the poor impoverished. So, what is your brilliant alternative? Instead of making them jump through hoops, everyone else in this FREE society who can afford private care and who want no part of a Public Option or a Single Payer system should be made to jump through hoops for THEM!? The Many should be made to suffer for the Few WHY? Why turn a free, capitalistic society upside down and inside out? There's no good reason to do that to in order to provide genuine health care to the poor. There's only one reason, and one reason only why a government would FORCE everyone to participate, even under the penalty of imprisonment, in a socialized medicine scheme. Other liberals, exceedingly more honest than you, have already come out of their dark Marxist closets and have admitted that ObamaCare is all about WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. It's NOT about health care for the poor. "Health care for the poor" is the smokescreen Marxists use to move a society gradually into Socialism and Collectivism and away from Capitalism and Individual Liberties.

Demanding that the Many ("haves") be made to suffer for the Few ("have nots") is how the former group get to share in the latter's poverty, isn't it? This is how poverty trickles up -- by the Many being made to share in the Few's misery. The Many are gradually made to become more like the Poor. Nothing like shared misery! :rolleyes: Continually sharing in the poor's misery is absolutely essentially in rendering them some aid, isn't it? 24/7 sacrifices are mandatory, too, right? :bang:

The poor are the ones who need motivation in order to try to improve their lives. The health care professionals need no encouragement or training. Again, by offering up this lame rebuttal, you just unwittingly admitted (implicitly) that the existing VA-Military operations suffer from serious deficiencies! Do the existing health care professionals in those operations need training? Do they lack motivation? You have charts and graphs to prove this? :rolleyes:

4-Why should anyone prefer your plan over existing real world models like the VA or health care systems in Japan or Germany?
Your plan HAS no real world data. Probably because it is so absurd and la la landish no one would consider it from jump. Certainly no health care professional.

Not true! There are plenty existing VA-Military operations from which to draw costs analysis. And this is really the only analysis that would need to be done, since the qualify of care has already been proven to be on a relatively high level.

Therefore, they should consider my model because it works pretty well in the Public Sector! There's absolutely no reason why the VA-Military model could not adapt itself for civilian use! (In evolutionary theory, this would be called Adaptation, right?) Again, borrowing from a Venn idea, what essentially we'd have is a relatively small Public Sector Health Care Circle (the model) being placed inside the much larger Private Sector Circle. This is how we'd be able to preserve freedom, individual liberties and capitalism while simultaneously providing various levels of low cost or even free care for Public Option patients. Since it's only the "poor" (or maybe even some tightwads, too!) who would be in need or desirous of services, there's no reason to make all those above the poor's level of poverty to jump through hoops. This is insane! In fact, it's beyond insanity!

I have a "parable" for you, 'cap. Tell me: When a homeless person is directed to a soup kitchen to obtain some sustenance for his body, does he have the right, upon his arrival, to demand to be fed filet mignon along with all the accouterments? Should he expect to be fed the finest food under the heavens, even though everyone else is eating what has been placed on front of them? But if were that audacious to demand to be fed better than everyone else, and the soup kitchen operator tells him that budgetary constraints won't permit him to honor his request (as much as he may like to), then does the homeless guy take his demand to the next level by demanding that kitchen operator dig up the funds to pay for the meal!?
Does he have the right to demand that the operator make lots of phone calls and send people out into the highways and byways to knock on doors of the "haves" so that they can contribute to the guys' meal? In other words, in your opinion -- would the homeless guy have a right to make everyone else around him to jump through hoops so that he can get the meal he wants -- but yet can't afford for himself? Gird up the loins of your mind and answer me this! If not, then why do you worry about the "poor" being made to "jump through hoops"!? SHOULD not the poor be grateful for what they receive, instead of expecting or even demanding more!?

Moreover, I thought you were in favor or health care rationing in order to achieve the all-important twin goals of Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness? If someone receiving free care is referred to some Public Option "advisory panel" (a/k/a Death Panel, according to your soul mate Paul Krugman) because he or she requires expensive treatment and that panel denies treatment due to cost considerations, why would you suddenly object to that kind of decision under my plan but not under the socialist model? What has changed...except for the models? :rolleyes: We all know that rationing of services is a fundamentally important component in all socialized medicine schemes because its absolutely imperative to control costs that would, otherwise, inflate out of control without it. So, what's your beef?

And if you're against Krugman's Death Panels rationing idea, then I must ask on what basis!? On what moral grounds would the poor person appeal? Would he not be like the audacious, ungrateful homeless man in my "parable" by demanding top notch care at someone else's expense? Would he have a right to demand that the "rest of the world" jump through hoops for him!? Why? Because life is so unfair? Because he's entitled to it? :bang: :bang:

Read and learn from the following miracle account in order to learn what ol' Ben Franklin, evidently, understood quite well about the human condition:

Luke 17:11-19
11 And it came about while He was on the way to Jerusalem, that He was passing between Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as He entered a certain village, ten leprous men who stood at a distance met Him; 13 and they raised their voices, saying, "Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!" 14 And when He saw them, He said to them, "Go and show yourselves to the priests." And it came about that as they were going, they were cleansed. 15 Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, 16 and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. 17 And Jesus answered and said, "Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine — where are they? 18 "Was no one found who turned back to give glory to God, except this foreigner?" 19 And He said to him, "Rise, and go your way; your faith has made you well."
NASB

It's no wonder at all that ol' Ben opined that we should make the poor miserable in their poverty; for truly if we do not, they will all become as the nine ungrateful ingrates in the above account who did not see fit to even acknowledge their merciful benefactor. These nine thought it too much trouble to turn back to to express any thanksgiving to Him for his goodness and grace. Then nine very obviously had no small sense of entitlement to the miracle, did they? Christ owed it to them, right? They had a God-given right to that miracle, didn't they!? :bang: :bang:

I tell you a truth 'cap:, The only thing the godless Marxist ideal does is instill ingratitude, a sense of entitlement and an unwarranted sense of worthiness into the human heart. It's no wonder Socialism is sweeping the globe like wild fire; for it appeals to and feeds the flames of the natural born enmity that Man has toward his Creator because Human Governments supplant the Creator by pretending to be mankind's Benevolent, Merciful, Compassionate Protector and Provider from all life's struggles.

I have some experience with engineering prototypes.

And I have my share of business experience, including owning some! The existing VA-Military model would work with civilians as well as it is currently working with military personnel. The only component that would be added to it would be the business component. That's it! The Public Option, with my VA-Military model, could be run as a very efficient, cost-effective non-profit business. This model would serve ALL SOCIETY very well. It would provide limited charity to some of those in need, and even unlimited to others, while simultaneously allowing the upper classes their freedom of choice. No one's rights would be trampled upon as it will be under ObamaCare. Everyone's rights would be preserved. No rights of one group would be violated in order to meet the real or even perceived rights of others.


I think you are doing a lot of vigorous and very " frantic hand waving"

No decipherable derails in your plan and no preliminary drawings. Just a vague sketch that has no real world data to back up anything you say. And what you say is not at all clear.

One more time.

I said at the very beginning that it was never my intent to sit down and write a nuts and bolts manual on my version of the Public Option plan. All I wanted to do was lay out a basic outline. The plan itself is simple,straightforward and transparent enough for any thinking person to offer any constructive criticisms -- none of which have been forthcoming from you --plenty of lame excuses, however. Since the VA-Military model has already proven itself over the course of many decades, there's no reason to believe that it wouldn't work just as well within the framework of the Free Enterprise System as it does currently in the Public Sector. It's not as though I'm proposing some unknown model. We already know quite a bit about it. And we know that it works pretty darn well. Why else would I chose it!? It is indeed one of the very, very few areas of legitimate government responsibility that the federal government gets right for a change!

Boxcar

[boxcar]

This bares repeating for those newbies on this board who may not be familiar with our resident megalomaniac :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :cool:


Btw, you forgot to include in my quotes that you cherry-picked all my :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: . But that's okay. You're just jealous that I can depart from the herding instinct and sheeple mentality to think for myself. Whereas the best you can do is bore us to death with how we should follow in the footsteps of others because everyone else uses the same Marxist-oriented model, instead of as a nation of creative, innovative, entrepreneurial people we blaze a new and different path for ouselves -- take a new direction -- that would preserve Capitalism and our Individual Liberties. You're nothing but a hopeless lap dog who loves to lick the boots of Karl Marx and his ilk.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

You are a dead ringer for boxcar :cool:

There is a difference between a homeless person in need and a homeless person in need who commits a crime.

Explain how. How can it become a crime to procure that to which someone has a legitimate right? If I have a human or some God-given right to feed myself, you have no right to stop me from breaking into your house and invading your frig to procure my right. If your argument becomes that I have no right to usurp your rights in the procurement of my own, I would remind you, Mr. 'cap, that this is the very same argument we conservatives use against the government's theft of our money under the color of law!

I, too, have a legitimate, God-given right to own personal and real property and to keep the fruits of my labor. No one, however, has the right to steal from those fruits to redistribute to others in the "name of social justice"! Only I have the right to distribute my income to others as I see fit.

It appears that once again, you want to have it both ways. It wouldn't be legitimate for me to tread on your rights to procure my own by forcing myself into your house to eat food to which I have a right because this would be "illegal", but you have no problem applauding and supporting the state when it trample on my rights, under the color and force of law, to own and keep what is my own in order that it may redistribute it to others so they might realize fulfillment of some trumped up right of their own! Oh...yes, once again we have a situation of, "What is good for me, will not work for thee!" In principle, there is no difference between the two scenarios, except in the latter situation an immoral law makes it okay in your eyes.

But I would also remind you, Mr. cap, that two can play the "ends justifies the means game" to which you so heartily subscribe...when it's expedient for you.

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Health care in Canada, related to the original post in this thread

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/22/kevin-libin-albertas-cookie-craver-munches-while-health-care-crumbles/

[boxcar]

Health care in Canada, related to the original post in this thread

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/22/kevin-libin-albertas-cookie-craver-munches-while-health-care-crumbles/

What a very timely link. Thank you, JR!

I found this particular paragraph revealing that suggested a remedy for their err...what shall we call it....Alberta's quality control problems? :D Look at what some people are supporting for a fix, but before looking at the fix, let's look at what appears to be a major cause of their crisis:

Next to 2007’s sweeping oil and gas royalty hikes, which were cancelled this spring after devastating Alberta’s energy sector, the creation of Alberta Health Services is probably the most significant policy move Mr. Stelmach has implemented since becoming premier in 2006. Under former premier Ralph Klein, health care was managed by nine regional boards; in 2008, Mr. Stelmach eliminated them all, arguing that health care across Alberta would be better managed by a single super board, run by one central planner, an Australian named Stephen Duckett.

So, the switched over in '08 to a centralized system to a "super board". :rolleyes:

Now, look at the suggested fix:

It was a startling shift: Mr. Klein’s PCs had at least mouthed support for more decentralized and privately delivered care as the solution to the ballooning health care budget, even if they never mustered the nerve to get far with it. With the province stretching 40% of its budget to be the top per capita spender on health care — and, as of the treasury’s announcement Monday, facing a record $5 billion deficit to do it — Mr. Stelmach’s government has reverted, instead, to yet more centralization and public delivery.

“A disconnected central planner in a distant community cannot possibly be able to plan his way through a $15 billion health care system; it’s the structure that’s the problem,” says Danielle Smith, Wildrose Alliance leader. The cookie incident, she says, demonstrates the AHS is run by a remote bureaucrat “who doesn’t feel he has to answer to anyone.”

And look how much this inferior quality health care is costing the province! And they're drowning in red ink, to add more insult to injury.

My version of a Public Option is looking better all the time. Now we can add, yet, another reason to many already listed: It would have the advantage of a DECENTRALIZED health care system. The "safety net" (to borrow 'cap's phrase) for the public would be the Public Option staffed with a Civilian Medical Corps. Meanwhile, this country would still have services provided by the Private Sector for anyone who chooses to use this option. My plan would avoid the "one big tent" centralized planning scheme, as well as the one-size-fits-all services.

In short, my version of the Public Option would truly be an option -- not just a nice sounding but deceiving euphemistic phrase. The integrity of free choice is preserved (which is how it should be in a free society). No one would be forced, coerced or mandated into the Public Option, which is the ultimate goal of this increasingly Marxist-oriented government of ours.

Boxcar

Boxcar

[fast4522]

Folks we sure do go off to many places don't we?

Anything Obama-Marxist-oriented will result in impeachment, do you really think Clinton was impeached just because he had a whore on the side and lied? They went after him in the United States House because it was "good enough" and wanted to show they could. Forget about any possible public option, you folks have no idea what has been unleashed in the last election. George Soros will be dead from old age before this electorate forgets the commies almost pulled it off. Tom was quite correct in saying Obama was a failed communist attempt if there ever was one, just watch the party of Obama crumble in the next election.

[boxcar]

I would like to spend some time debunking this rather curious and even...irrational notion, dare I say at the risk of offending some here? Yes, I believe it is irrational to think that health care, for example, should be a human or civil right. But I'm not using this term to insult anyone for none of us think, behave or talk rationally 100% of the time. Not even me -- just 99.999999999% of the time. :lol: :lol: :lol: (Stay tuned for another Boxcar megalomania alert from our beloved but humor-impaired Hcap -- perhaps even color-coded. :rolleyes: )

I have often challenged this curious notion about health care by upping the ante, in a manner of speaking, by asking why shouldn't societies toss even the more fundamentally important things in life such as food, shelter and clothing into the human rights pile, as well? I guess Hcap became frustrated with this kind of rhetorical but pointed rebuttal and tried to lay it to rest once and for all by stating that all these things should be rights! Yes! Everyone on the planet should have a right to all these things! His rationale was that everyone was entitled to a "safety net" and that by a society providing these kinds of safety nets to everyone, it demonstrated how compassionate and civilized it was, etc.,etc., etc. In short, Mr. 'cap provided us with a very shallow-ringing excuse that was without doubt viscerally-generated. Not very well thought out at all. Hopefully, I can do better with the rebuttal that is to follow.

Dave Schwartz, too, contributed early on in this thread by stating that health care "should" be a right. The word "should" is a strong term, for it denotes a moral obligation -- a moral duty -- an expression of something that is mandatory. This is why the term (in all its various forms) is used so often in the bible and even in our laws, e.g. in scripture, "thou shall not murder", etc.

But deciding whether or not to make the fundamentally important things in life rights is no small matter -- at least it isn't for people, such as myself, who value Freedom. What we must try to understand the profound implications and ramifications to granting God-like authority to any government to make anything a "right" -- human, civil or otherwise.
Governments like nothing better than being granted God-like authority and power over their people. Governments love it when large segments of a population start to demand from it certain rights because that puts the state in the cat bird seat; for it would be the state's role to "benevolently" grant those rights. The state will naturally think that people are nothing more than dumb sheep (and sheep are not smart animals and really cannot take care of themselves very well!) who are demanding that the shepherds (the state) watch over them, as though these equally human shepherds are somehow smarter than their flocks!

This is why I stated yesterday that Socialism is such a godless, secular humanist form of government because it usurps God's role in this world. The bible frequently refers to God's people as his "sheep". Christians are the "sheep" of God's pasture. God, in his infinite wisdom, chose this shepherd-sheep imagery for very good reason. Jesus, the Good Shepherd of his Father's flock, is all powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, all-merciful, etc., etc. and as such is eminently qualified to care for for those who are everything but these things! But notice something here: Jesus is the GOOD Shepherd. Tell me -- those of you who desire to make this thing a right, and that thing a right and another thing a right, and who so earnestly desire to grant God-like authority and power to the state -- tell me: Rattle off for me all the good people that are in government! I have to think you must have a very long list because why else would you trust the state to take care of you -- to shepherd you and the rest of the sheeple in the land, if the state wasn't loaded with GOOD human beings!? Oh wait...I know. You really don't have such a list, do you? That's why so many of you are "dumb sheep"! You just blindly trust, whoever it is, that is running the show. But guess what, "sheeple"? I have some really bad news for you: The shepherds you blindly trust with your liberties are just as blind as you are! And as the Good Book says, the blind guides will lead the blind and they will BOTH fall into the ditch! Be very careful what you wish for!

Now, that we have some idea of what is at stake when we start demanding rights from the state, in my next segment we will look at this issue of "rights" from two perspectives. If something is a legitimate right, why should we have to pay for it? Also, we'll look at what I think is the major reason why so many well-intentioned people, nonetheless mistakenly think something should become a right.

Boxcar

[hcap]

My version of a Public Option is looking better all the time. Now we can add, yet, another reason to many already listed: It would have the advantage of a DECENTRALIZED health care system. The "safety net" (to borrow 'cap's phrase) for the public would be the Public Option staffed with a Civilian Medical Corps. Meanwhile, this country would still have services provided by the Private Sector for anyone who chooses to use this option. My plan would avoid the "one big tent" centralized planning scheme, as well as the one-size-fits-all services.

In short, my version of the Public Option would truly be an option -- not just a nice sounding but deceiving euphemistic phrase. The integrity of free choice is preserved (which is how it should be in a free society). No one would be forced, coerced or mandated into the Public Option, which is the ultimate goal of this increasingly Marxist-oriented government of ours.
Many successful health systems throughout the world already use a combination of public and private insurers. Nothing in your 1/2 baked proposal is new other than an official policy of unequal treatment based on an idiotic "tough love" premise that you have yet to explain in real world details. I have asked you how acute conditions are dealt with under your plan and you cannot provide an answer other than you are "only theoretically speaking". You refuse to deal with the ramifications of making the "poor uncomfortable". Ironically your 1/2 baked proposal does just that by class segregation and unequal level of treatment. No other system in the world acts or thinks in such a manner.

UNLESS YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT USA SYSTEM!!

You guys complain about death panels for grandma. Well that is exactly what you are proposing in the guise of a compassionate and fair heath care solution for the "poor" -- and all within the context of Capitalism Look at the other western industrialized systems first. You will find:

1-They provide universal access to care

2-Do not do a means test to treat the poor differently than the rich

3-Already use a mix of socialism (public) and capitalism (private) to deliver services.

4-And most important do not get mired down in archaic 18th century ideological economics and literally minded biblical interpretation

[hcap]

Hey box, you must do nothing else but preach on PA off topic. Extremely long and boring repetitions ending in a rabid rant against evil libs.

I was typing my last post. I did not see your last "gem" until I finished. I have little patience left to wade thru' your sermons. And not an unlimited amount time. Why not stay on point?

My response to your most recent rant?...most important do not get mired down in archaic 18th century ideological economics and literally minded biblical interpretation

[fast4522]

You can stick a fork into Obama care, every hcap post will go down in vein just like crap and fade, post your eyeballs out and the result will be the same. Anything euro like here will be rejected by the majority for years to come.

[hcap]

One more thing box. All those other "socialistic" evil god hating European POS countries also allow private practitioners to hang out their shingles and take money from Saudi Sheiks. So it would appear you have in fact re-invented the wheel, but a Fred Flinstone wheel that is fairly square. Those annoying god hating Eurotrash libs at least use circular kind. :p

[Tom]

OK, just we get this straight, you are going on record as saying:

1. Lifestyle choices have no effect on the life spans of people.
2. Infant mortality is not increased by unfit mothers using drugs and alcohol.
3. Government regulations do not affect the cost of health care.

Correct?

Bump.
Must have missed this.

[boxcar]

Many successful health systems throughout the world already use a combination of public and private insurers. Nothing in your 1/2 baked proposal is new other than an official policy of unequal treatment based on an idiotic "tough love" premise that you have yet to explain in real world details. I have asked you how acute conditions are dealt with under your plan and you cannot provide an answer other than you are "only theoretically speaking". You refuse to deal with the ramifications of making the "poor uncomfortable". Ironically your 1/2 baked proposal does just that by class segregation and unequal level of treatment. No other system in the world acts or thinks in such a manner.

UNLESS YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT USA SYSTEM!!

You guys complain about death panels for grandma. Well that is exactly what you are proposing in the guise of Look at the other western industrialized systems first. You will find:

1-They provide universal access to care

2-Do not do a means test to treat the poor differently than the rich

3-Already use a mix of socialism (public) and capitalism (private) to deliver services.

4-And most important do not get mired down in archaic 18th century ideological economics and literally minded biblical interpretation

I have given real world examples. What about my "parable" of the homeless man? According to your twisted idea of "fairness", he should have every right to demand to be fed what he wants, even though he can't pay for it, correct?

Also, in the real world, the "means test" is precisely what is used in the market place when consumers make buying decisions! It is precisely that UNWRITTEN LAW to which all normal, well-adjusted, rationale, intelligent, educated, fair-minded consumers subscribe and numerous vendors demand when making their purchases! :bang: :bang:

In the real world, banks will now be extremely reluctant to make loans to low income, unqualified home buyers whenever the evidence suggests that they don't have THE MEANS TO PAY. :bang: Such people will be turned down! They will be advised to shop for homes that are within their means!

In the real world (as opposed to the perverse alternate reality of socialism)
a consumer cannot walk into a Lexus showroom, plunk down his $1,000. worth of life savings and demand to drive out with a spanking new Lexus that is worth tens of thousands of dollars! :bang:

In the real world, a poor consumer cannot waltz into his neighborhood supermarket, pick up $95. worth of meat to feed his family with and plunk down a $5. bill in front of the cashier and expect to saunter out the store with the supermarket's meat.

In the real world, a low income consumer cannot stroll into a Target to buy a wardrobe for for his family of four and shove a $10. bill in the face of the cashier and expect to stroll out of the store with all the clothing.

In the real world, none of these things are possible. Therefore, why should it be possible when a consumer goes to purchase health care services!? What makes this product different from any of the above? Answer me this!

And as far as "death panels, it is you "compassionate" liberals who cooked up this idea! Never, never forget this! I'll ask again (you keep avoiding my tough, pointed questions, 'cap): Why are YOU suddenly balking at the idea of rationing health care services as a means to limit costs? Rationing is an integral part of any publicly-provided service in order to control costs. How will the "advisory committees", i.e. which are really death panels, deal with acute conditions under ObamaCare? Will everyone under ObamaCare have the right to receive unlimited care, no matter the costs? Since "end of life" counseling" will be provided under ObamaCare, why can't it be provided no charge under my Public Option plan? Answer me this. And would you object to a poor person opting out of life when he can't get the treatment he wants or needs due to budgetary constraints of the system? And if someone decided this, wouldn't you even volunteer to give him the lethal dose and be there to hold his hand to comfort him? Don't you believe in person's "right" to choose euthanasia? I truly don't understand your objections here; for you have never voiced these kinds of concerns previously.

In my plan everyone would be universally covered, if they choose to be. The major difference, of course, is that everyone ALSO gets to exercise their freedom of choice! (And I know this must bug you to no end!) Universal Coverage is there for those who want to avail themselves to it. It wouldn't be forced upon anyone! Everyone would have three choices: Column A, Column B or C -- which is I'll Take a Pass because presently I'm young, healthy and believe that I'm going to live forever.

And the other major difference, of course, is that under my plan, The Government must keep its slimy, greedy, power-hungry hands out of the Health Care Industry in the Private Sector. The state gets to set up its own shop within the Private Sector to compete directly against the OTHER direct Health Care Providers in the Sector. This is the sheer genius behind my plan (if you don't mind me saying so, of course :lol: :lol: :lol: ). What is there not like about competition!? :bang:

And I don't get the point to your fourth objection, 'cap. I was under the impression (apparently falsely :rolleyes: ) that you thought very highly of Jesus. I thought you were a big fan of his teachings? What's the matter? You didn't like his lesson in that Lukian passage that dealt with the ten lepers? :rolleyes: . I think it is a timeless message. I really do. Look at how the Welfare and Entitlement addicts behaved in France and England recently. They, too, had the same entitlement mentality as the Nine who never returned to give thanks.

Remember, 'cap: Very early on in this thread, you stated that the "issue" was efficiency and availability of care. Well, what's your beef, then? My plan very neatly addresses both concerns. It has been proven that the VA-Military model provides good care efficiently. The model has proven that the government is a pretty decent DIRECT care provider. And under my plan, health care would be available to all civilian consumers who want it or need it.

(In fact, while I'm thinking about this, permit to add Benefit or Advantage No. 78 to my plan. :lol: :lol: What's also not to like about all the new jobs that would be created under the Civilian Medical Corps? Lots of employment opportunities there to be had for all. But I digress...let's move on.)

See, I know what you're real problem is, 'cap because I know how the twisted liberal mind works (as much as I hate to admit this :D ). You artificially remove all the "poor" from the category of Consumer. This is your huge hang-up. But I have news for you: If anyone is living, breathing, eating and drinking -- they are consuming resources! Only when someone becomes graveyard-bound does that person cease being a consumer. (But don't forget: The undertaker still expects to be paid. :lol: :lol: ) Yes, even the poor are consumers. Therefore, they, too, should be treated as such. They, too, are subject to that "unwritten law" that operates in the free marketplace in a free society. They, too, should expect to subjected to a "means test" the same way everyone else is. No low income person should be as the ungrateful homeless person in my soup kitchen parable! What gives them the right to expect different treatment? I thought EQUALITY was such a big concern of yours? :rolleyes: Well, if the "poor" are treated just like all other consumers -- if they receive equal treatment in the free market place via the "unwritten law", what's your beef?

Now, a real world anecdote before I end this: I know two formerly homeless brothers. (They used to be homeless, but have since found shelter arrangements, thankfully.) Anyway, the older brother (by several years) is not well at all. Tons of physical problems, and of course he's on Medicaid. He required expensive surgery -- a hip replaced due to an old injury. Guess what, Mr. "cap? Your beloved kind, compassionate, benevolent, all merciful government refused treatment (politely, of course :rolleyes: ). Even though he's in a good deal of pain and on all kinds of drugs, they will not perform the needed surgery. Can you spell R-A-T-I-O-N-I-N-G, 'cap? Now, if this poor guy had the means to pay, would he not be able to buy the services he needs? Of course, he would! You don't think the U.S. government, under its Medicare and Medicaid programs, use any "means testing"? Are you that naive?

Life isn't fair, 'cap. And insipid socialism really can't help. In fact, it's a huge drain on a society's resources. Robbing Peter to pay Paul only minimally helps the former, while appreciably hurting the latter eventually. The piper will be paid sooner or later! Free Lunches aren't real, 'cap. They're an urban legend.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

One more thing box. All those other "socialistic" evil god hating European POS countries also allow private practitioners to hang out their shingles and take money from Saudi Sheiks. So it would appear you have in fact re-invented the wheel, but a Fred Flinstone wheel that is fairly square. Those annoying god hating Eurotrash libs at least use circular kind. :p

Yeah, but all those Marxist, god-hating countries don't give most of their citizens the choice of choosing between the two. While a well-heeled citizen may be able choose the private sector, he still has to pay into the public one. So, he pays for his private sector care and for someone else's care in the public sector. Under my plan, all taxpayers would be taxed up front but gradually receive refunds or sizable tax rate reductions because the Big Three Entitlement Programs would be phased out while the Public Option is also being phased in.

Boxcar
P.S. My wheel is a lot rounder than your square head. :D

[fast4522]

Boxcar, you do not get it dude, there will never be a public option.

[boxcar]

Boxcar, you do not get it dude, there will never be a public option.

I certainly hope not; but I wouldn't bank on that if I were you. You're letting yourself open to a huge disappointment. But even so, my Private Sector-oriented idea for one is still dynamite. ;)

Boxcar
P.S. I'm not at all confident that the U.S. will be able to prevail against the gates of hell.

[Steve R]

I am astounded by the ignorance Americans display about issues of health care. I live in a country having both private and public health care programs where essentially 100% of the population has access to first-rate medical facilities, the average lifespan is longer than in the U.S., obesity rates are relatively low and costs are a fraction of those Americans must pay. That free-market zealots actually believe markets are free rather than manipulated by corporate criminal "gangs" in collusion with politicians is even more amazing. Eisenhower knew this and nobody listened. When corporations and their lobbyists are the ones writing legislation, the public should be very concerned. How foolish is it to think that corporations write legislation for the benefit of the general public and not themselves? In the matter of health care the free-marketers are convinced medical decisions should not be made by representatives of non-profit government organizations but by for-profit insurance companies whose main objective is to deny health care coverage. How insane is that?

The title of this thread refers to second-rate U.S. health care. I know from personal experience it isn't that good. Both the access to, and the quality of health care I now have have exceeds by far any I experienced when I lived in the U.S. I can make an appointment and see a doctor, including a specialist, usually within 24 hours and often on the same day. One family member arrived here with a chronic condition never treated successfully in the U.S. over several years that was effectively cured within a few short weeks. Another was diagnosed during routine screening with a serious ailment of long standing that had gone undetected for years in the U.S. Even in the private system, costs are a mere fraction of those in the U.S. for identical procedures. For example, according to the website newchoicehealth.com, a combined colonoscopy/endoscopy at a facility within the zip code I used to live in the U.S. is estimated to cost $4,075. Eighteen months ago I paid $500 where I live now.

Based on personal experiences with health care in both countries, I can state unequivocally that it is far superior here than it ever was in the U.S. And no amount of rabid, inane ideological ravings about the evils of "socialism" can change that fact. The bogeyman factor is alive and well in the U.S. so I suppose I shouldn't expect a nation that has willingly forfeited its fundamental constitutional rights out of irrational fear to be rational about health care.

How far does American irrationality extend? Do they even question why the Homeland Security fascists are so focused on terrorists boarding airplanes when, if they wanted to, terrorists could simply blow up hundreds right there in the airports waiting in line for full body scans. Or even more in the thousands of shopping malls on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon. Maybe Americans so dumbed down, uninformed and afraid that they have become like sheep. Wasn't it Pogo who said "we have met the enemy and he is us"? It's never been truer and it precludes any sensible approach to health care.

[hcap]

Remember, 'cap: Very early on in this thread, you stated that the "issue" was efficiency and availability of care. Well, what's your beef, then? My plan very neatly addresses both concerns. It has been proven that the VA-Military model provides good care efficiently. The model has proven that the government is a pretty decent DIRECT care provider. Yes it does. But only because it is not mixed with private market INEFFICIENT and greedy insurers with 30% administrative and overhead costs


There is nothing new in your plan. The choice to buy private insurance and use private doctors is already built in to all health care systems throughout the world. What is new is your tough love philosophy as applied to the poor. I am still waiting for a real world example of tough love in your 'new plan. Other than saying the poor will not be able to buy expensive private treatment, you have said nothing about how tough love and not making the poor too comfortable applies to health care.You started this discussion of your new health plan with a snippet from Ben Franklin. Here's what you said.
For example, the sage advice of Ben Franklin (I think it was) stuck in the forefront of my mind when he essentially said (to paraphrase), we should do all we can to make the poor as miserable as possible in their poverty.. At first blush, this may sound a little harsh, even cold hearted. But when you stop to ponder the implications to those words, you'll find that they had to have been uttered by a very warm, compassionate, caring human being. For why would we want to make the poor comfortable in their poverty? What good would that serve? What incentive would they have to ever formulate an exit strategy out of their poverty, if we did not endeavor to make them uncomfortable in it!? Franklin wasn't advocating suffering for the poor by refusing them aid in their plight, but rather that we shouldn't make them at ease in their poverty by communicating to them any sense of endless entitlement to public assistance. Here is what you have done since and contrary to the above. Proposed a public option that is also really an entitlement. And a variation on the VA plan. Public options are paid for by a broad tax base. And if enough of lower and middle class citizens choose it, it will be self sustaining. I have no problem to those that chose to opt out of the public option and choosing not being taxed for the public option. Other than the very well off, most will choose the public option because of overall lower costs. That is the advantage of government run health care systems throughout the world. As I said I have no objection in principle to this.

But am still waiting to find out how your tough love is applied in real world treatment under your modified VA plan.

Are you saying we get what we pay for and the rich can pay for more? Like our Saudi Sheik? Big deal Nothing exactly new here.

So box, since you can provide no application in real world terms of Ben Franklins snippet. (For instance does a poor mans' inoperable cancer get treated with fewer pain killers than a middle class man? Does a poor child with a cleft lip get to wait longer than a middle class child for cosmetic surgery? ) and, since you have wholeheartedly endorsed an opt in public option-which was one of the things we liberals proposed, I can only conclude you have become a socialist and full fledged lib.

Welcome

[fast4522]

I certainly hope not; but I wouldn't bank on that if I were you. You're letting yourself open to a huge disappointment. But even so, my Private Sector-oriented idea for one is still dynamite. ;)

Boxcar
P.S. I'm not at all confident that the U.S. will be able to prevail against the gates of hell.

Might I remind you that you were one of the doubters before the election almost sounding like BHO had a chance to prevent the slaughter that would befall his party. You see Boxcar, you can not have it both ways and your hopes will be the ones that get run over here.

[boxcar]

Hey box, you must do nothing else but preach on PA off topic. Extremely long and boring repetitions ending in a rabid rant against evil libs.

Well, you know, 'cap I look at my "preachin'" this way: I could use the practice for when I go prime time; and God knows that even if you O.D.'d on spiritual truth, you'd still be spiritually emaciated. :lol: :lol:

I was typing my last post. I did not see your last "gem" until I finished. I have little patience left to wade thru' your sermons. And not an unlimited amount time. Why not stay on point?

You're the one who is all the over map with your dumb, ill-conceived, lame objections. But it seems that we finally nailed down what is eatin' at your craw, haven't we? You're okay with applying a Double Standard to citizens -- one for the "poor" and one for all above the poverty level. For this latter group, you have no qualms with applying a "means test" because this fits in perfectly with your bosom buddy's wealth redistribution creed. But we dare not apply this same test to the former group because that strays too far from Marxism. It's the same 'ol tired moral relevancy "the ends justifies the means" crap.

Score one for the Gipper; for I have shined the Light of Truth on your Moral Bankruptcy and exposed you for the deep seated Marxist ideologue you really are. You're right down there with Soros, Van Jones, Krugman, Alinsky, Reich and yes...your bloodied lipped messiah Barack Hussein Obama, too. :lol: :lol: But I'm not yet finished with you, 'cap. While I, too, have limited time, I will expose the utter absurdity to your foolish notion that health care, food, shelter and clothing should all be human "rights". :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Hope you're enjoying your leftovers today. :D And whatever you do, keep your face protected, lest I give you a "bloody lip", too, in my next post.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

P.P.S. Hey...if I were to give you a bloody lip, just think of the opportunity that would present. Maybe you could get yourself invited to the W.H. and you could greet BO the Mideast way, except plant a kiss directly on his lips. By trading blood, you two could become lifelong blood brothers. Couldn't ask for a greater honor...or better photo-op. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hcap]

All you have dome is dress up an opt in/opt out public option with your usual silly slap the poor around rhetoric. Once again I remind you that you launched your "brilliant if you must say so yourself" revolutionary plan with a tough love premise ala Ben Franklin. Then in stark contrast, threw in what we all assumed was going to be a continuation of the usual Bocarian rant, surprisingly, a public option.

OK!! Then an elaboration on who will pay for it. OK. No prob;em! Those who decide not to opt in won't be forced to pay. OK. Then more ranting about socialism, commies and a few more slap the poor around references. But NO, I repeat NO, specific real world examples of how slapping the poor around-( of course for heir OWN good) -would be applied to your revolutionary opt in/opt out public option.

I am still waiting. But while waiting all I can see -to use your black/white world view- is a socialistic, commie, lib public option that Obama should have pushed for. That libs like myself would have loved. So box, once again where are your tough love, slap the poor around for their own good, real world examples? As applied to your VA modeled opt in public option??

Until then I will ignore all your tough love slap the poor around for their own good remarks and wholeheartedly congratulate you on recognizing the flawed health care system we have, and suggesting a government run public option. There is hope for you yet.

[slewis]

You're the one who is all the over map with your dumb, ill-conceived, lame objections.




P.P.S. Hey...if I were to give you a bloody lip, just think of the opportunity that would present. honor...or better photo-op. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Hey Box you are quite the fool.

You want to rant about ill-conceived objections when you are the king.

People like you find every opportunity to find the smallest incident in a system that works well and then try to expose it as being failure.

Like the Canadian health care system. You jump up and down about the
Alberta article like "yea, we caught them......complaints!...we told you that system's a failure!"

Ill tell you what jerk off, this web site is primarily a horse racing gambling site.
How's about we make a wager? What percentage of Americans are happy with their Health Care coverage and the price they pay vs Canadians. Since the Canadian citizens are about 85% happy, without doing any handicapping, how much would you like to bet? Come on tough guy...put you money where your mouth is.

The we can poll Canadian businesses cost of care vs American businesses and bet the same.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Then we can poll citizens on their prescription costs..:lol: :lol:

I've said this before that debating you is easier than debating a 4 yr old child because your points have no concrete substance supporting them.

Then you make stupid points about the Saudi King.... Do you know what doctor's he's seeing and why? But you use this as a judgement of the success/failure of a medical system.

Back in the 80's while watching 60 minutes a Russian doctor had a sketch of a human eye with a bunch of lines drawn through it. He explained how using a laser on a human eye and scribing lines similar to the picture he could correct vision. No technology was remotely available in the USA. At that time had the Saudi king needed Lasik surgery, he'd have gone to Russia. Do we pronounce the Soviets to have the best medical care in the world?
This is an example of an ill-conceived dumb sample, something you do all to often.

[fast4522]

This is the mean season, anyone thinking that quotes from a bible will have any effect on actually comes to be is misguided. The fact remains that there is no more money left, and what BHO thinks he can do he no longer can not because the President does not have the power of the the spending. You are all fooling yourselves that the debt limit will be raised in The United States Congress without huge cuts to your beloved programs first. Sixty painful votes in The united Stated Senate just to agree to vote on anything. Special budget continuation resolutions over and over. Bash the poor no, but tough love is on the way. Screw Europe, The Bilderburgers, and most of all George Soros!

[slewis]

[QUOTE=fast4522]This is the mean season, anyone thinking that quotes from a bible will have any effect on actually comes to be is misguided. The fact remains that there is no more money left.QUOTE]


You're another fool whose post's have no substance.

Yeah, here are the cuts:

Get out of Iraq and stop paying Iraqi's to keep peace so we could save face.

Stop giving aide to countries who undermine our security.

Any ideas you have about cutting major entitlment programs ain't gonna happen.

And if you think the future is so bleak, why don't you show me another country who's GDP is even remotely comparable to ours.

So I guess you were very anti-Reagan when he ran up the national debt?

You're a tea party-panzi.

[Tom]

Mr. Congeniality.

Do you ever take your head out of your ass long enough to comb your hair? Wazzup, your cat kick you back? :D

[lsbets]

I always get a kick out of slewis when he jumps into threads pretending to be a tough guy.

[boxcar]

I always get a kick out of slewis when he jumps into threads pretending to be a tough guy.

He's obviously off his meds. Or quite possibly he also bought a dated turkey at a cut rate price at his local market, and the 'ol bird unsettled a lot more than his tum-tum. :D

Boxcar

[boxcar]

[/color]

Hey Box you are quite the fool.

You want to rant about ill-conceived objections when you are the king.

People like you find every opportunity to find the smallest incident in a system that works well and then try to expose it as being failure.

Like the Canadian health care system. You jump up and down about the
Alberta article like "yea, we caught them......complaints!...we told you that system's a failure!"

Ill tell you what jerk off, this web site is primarily a horse racing gambling site.
How's about we make a wager? What percentage of Americans are happy with their Health Care coverage and the price they pay vs Canadians. Since the Canadian citizens are about 85% happy, without doing any handicapping, how much would you like to bet? Come on tough guy...put you money where your mouth is.

Hey, Mr. Einstein-Wanna-be...where have you been since 11/9? In light of the election results at the federal AND state levels, the eminently more intelligent question would have been: Tell me what percentage of Americans are happy that ObamaCare was rammed down our throats? :bang: :bang: :bang: You really should try to get out more.


Boxcar
P.S. Hey...when you have some time, be sure to email the Saudi king and give him a double 5-star rating for the Alberta health care system and tell him he's missing the boat by not going there instead. :lol: :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I...That free-market zealots actually believe markets are free rather than manipulated by corporate criminal "gangs" in collusion with politicians is even more amazing. Eisenhower knew this and nobody listened. When corporations and their lobbyists are the ones writing legislation, the public should be very concerned...

Does this mean that I'm not crazy for thinking that the free market system is a sham but one that is spawned from the womb of politicians will be at least as much so?

[boxcar]

Does this mean that I'm not crazy for thinking that the free market system is a sham but one that is spawned from the womb of politicians will be at least as much so?

Stevie is right. This, too, is a brilliant part of my version of a Public Option (if you don't mind me saying so :lol: :lol: ). My plan would get the U.S. government out of the Private Sector's Health Care Industry! The Gov would get to do its thing, within the Private Sector, by running its own direct care operations via the proven VA-Military model, and the privately owned health care corporations would do their thing providing care to all those who want to access that part of the market. This is precisely why consumers would win big time! Consumers can only wind up on the short end of the stick whenever government intrudes on corporations, or when corporations try to prevail upon the government for welfare.

I can't stand it when I'm so smart. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Then we can poll citizens on their prescription costs..

I'm sure the Canadians (and Mexico) would not be so enthralled if the Drug companies charged them the same price for drugs that they charge here in the US.

[fast4522]

The 2010 election is over but the war has just begun, those backed by the power of Tea are expected to draw blood from the most cherished programs. California and New York and others will be crushed by their own info structures without help from BHO (STUBBY) those 14 stitches are minor compared to the pain he will feel the next time he goes to flex what he no longer has. Make no mistake getting rid of him at reelection is job one, make up all these nice dreams you can. Post come more charts we will even put on some Roy Orbison singing pretty pictures for you, no matter because your still cooked and get the fork out.

[hcap]

..This, too, is a brilliant part of my version of a Public Option (if you don't mind me saying so )

....I can't stand it when I'm so smart. My guess is none of us will lose much sleep over this. If I were you, I would be more worried about being able to remove your own puckered lips from your own humble rear end.

[hcap]

Post come more charts we will even put on some Roy Orbison singing pretty pictures for you,

Public share of health expenditure, OECD countries, 2005. By percentage of total health expenditures.
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/y/images/public_health_percent.gif

http://www.gibson.com/Files/aaFeaturesImages2008pt2/roy%20orbison.jpg

[boxcar]

My guess is none of us will lose much sleep over this. If I were you, I would be more worried about being able to remove your own puckered lips from your own humble rear end.

Typical smug, snobbish, arrogant elitist -- "none of us"? :rolleyes: Or were you just referring to yourself and the two flea-invested sewer rats you carry around in your hip pockets for companionship and intellectual stimulation purposes?

And, 'cap, I want that you should know that I'll be happy to comply with your request, as soon as you can pry your tongue loose from the bottom of Marx's boots.

Boxcar

[hcap]

Mr Megalomaniac. You never told us how not coddling the poor will be applied to your reworked VA style public option.

Hand waving is no substitute for reality, unless you are so full of your own ego, you think your droppings smell like roses.

[boxcar]

All you have dome is dress up an opt in/opt out public option with your usual silly slap the poor around rhetoric. Once again I remind you that you launched your "brilliant if you must say so yourself" revolutionary plan with a tough love premise ala Ben Franklin. Then in stark contrast, threw in what we all assumed was going to be a continuation of the usual Bocarian rant, surprisingly, a public option.

OK!! Then an elaboration on who will pay for it. OK. No prob;em! Those who decide not to opt in won't be forced to pay. OK. Then more ranting about socialism, commies and a few more slap the poor around references. But NO, I repeat NO, specific real world examples of how slapping the poor around-( of course for heir OWN good) -would be applied to your revolutionary opt in/opt out public option.

I am still waiting. But while waiting all I can see -to use your black/white world view- is a socialistic, commie, lib public option that Obama should have pushed for. That libs like myself would have loved. So box, once again where are your tough love, slap the poor around for their own good, real world examples? As applied to your VA modeled opt in public option??

You're still waiting???? Waiting for what? The moon to fall on your head!? :bang: :bang: You're waiting to find out how rationing would work -- the same kind rationing by health care insurers that you libs have constantly pointed to in the private sector under the current system in order to justify ObaminationCare? Or the same kind of rationing that will be in ObaminationCare? Or would it be the same kind of rationing to what your buddy Krugman wants, i.e. DEATH PANELS! I mean really, 'cap: What part of rationing don't you understand!? :bang: :bang: There isn't a serious die-hard Marxist-Leninst out there who doesn't justify rationing. They all recognize it as fundamentally important component to socialized medicine? But suddenly, you don't? Even under the current Medicare and Medicaid models, there is plenty of rationing! Surely...surely, you would not object to ObamaCare-type, bureaucratic, "advisory panels" being adopted in my version of the Public Option, would you? Or to End of Life Counseling by bureaucrats? You have never objected before to the "tough love" schemes of the ObamaCare freaks via rationing -- via "advisory panels". But now you, hypocrite, you complain about my version of tough love? :bang: :bang: You're such a FRAUD!

The libs, in a 1,000 years would never choose my version of the Public Option because they would lose too much control over the masses. They wouldn't get to realize their wealth redistribution goals. They wouldn't get to politicize my Va-Military model nearly as often as they would be able to by a power grab of the entire heath care industry in the Private Sector. You libs want all the sheeple grazing on one pasture -- not two! The one pasture plan for the libs makes it easier for them to control everything.

And by the way -- everyone gets to pay! Everyone! You think the contributions from just the low income people, who could afford any, would be enough to sustain my Free Market version of the Public Option? It would largely be subsidized by the taxpayers who opt OUT of the Public Option. (But that's not compassionate enough for you, is it!?) But over the long run, the taxpayers would save considerable money due to the phase in/phase out requirements, due the elimination of virtually all the current government bureaucratic red tape in the Private Sector and due to lower costs of privatized care which would be directly attributable to the competition the Public Option would provide. Again, everyone wins!

Until then I will ignore all your tough love slap the poor around for their own good remarks and wholeheartedly congratulate you on recognizing the flawed health care system we have, and suggesting a government run public option. There is hope for you yet.

I understand your Marxist-oriented sentiments perfectly. Trust me: I have YOUR number! You'd much prefer to apply your brand of tough love and SLAP DOWN to everyone above the poverty level. You'd rather punish them instead! Why? Well, if they're not impoverished, they probably stole their money or cheated others out of it, or earned on the backs of the poor...yada, yada, yada. You'd prefer to make the Many jump through the fiery hoops for the Few. You'd prefer to punish the successful and reward the failures in life! Right? Am I white hot here or what? :rolleyes: :bang:

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Mr Megalomaniac. You never told us how not coddling the poor will be applied to your reworked VA style public option.

Hand waving is no substitute for reality, unless you are so full of your own ego, you think your droppings smell like roses.

Everything is relative. And yes, compared, to the crap you toss around here, mine smells like a field full of roses because my plan makes eminently good sense!

See my post above for how "not coddling" the poor would work. It would work on the order of how rationing would work under ObamaCare, I would imagine. Or maybe according to Krugman's ideal. In either case, you wouldn't object, right?

Boxcar

[riskman]

BoxCar--It may be that your model a sort of miniversion of single-payer, a modest, government-run insurance plan would serve as a test model for the real thing. Simply by removing the profit motive, the government plan would be cheaper than private insurance. The goal would be to offer the rock-bottom price, so that people could buy insurance practically at cost. Government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. In other words, if you offer a public plan that doesn't systematically screw every single person in the country by selling health care at inflated prices and raking in monster profits, private insurers just won't be able to compete. Since the plan will be basic, private insurers could offer "GAP" policies similar to what is now being offered under Medicare. Even if 50% of the so called uninsured Americans[47M] or 23M this would surpass any group in the private market and would lower costs substantially for its policyholders. Just think, BoxCar might be known as the innovator of single payer health insurance,

[Jay Trotter]

Early Xmas gift fo Boxmeister....


OPEN BOX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gmbOAAXtA&feature=related)

[boxcar]

BoxCar--It may be that your model a sort of miniversion of single-payer, a modest, government-run insurance plan would serve as a test model for the real thing. Simply by removing the profit motive, the government plan would be cheaper than private insurance. The goal would be to offer the rock-bottom price, so that people could buy insurance practically at cost. Government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers. In other words, if you offer a public plan that doesn't systematically screw every single person in the country by selling health care at inflated prices and raking in monster profits, private insurers just won't be able to compete. Since the plan will be basic, private insurers could offer "GAP" policies similar to what is now being offered under Medicare. Even if 50% of the so called uninsured Americans[47M] or 23M this would surpass any group in the private market and would lower costs substantially for its policyholders. Just think, BoxCar might be known as the innovator of single payer health insurance,


I don't think that would happen. The "Public Option" would be a no-frills operation. And it's NOT insurance. It would a DIRECT care operation. Look at it this way: My version could be compared to a Wal-Mart, while privately run operations could be compared to a JC Pennys or a Macys. Consumers have always been divided between price and quality service-oriented operations. Wal-Mart hasn't put these companies out of business or even Target, its nearest competitor. Why? Because there will always be consumer demand for Price or Quality.

Another great example of how consumers look for Price OR Service-oriented business can be found with a supermarket chain in my State. Publix is a privately held company that has always been noted for providing Quality and Service; therefore, by necessity their Prices have always been on the high side. (Remember: A business cannot offer all three and stay around for long.) Meanwhile, over the course of years, the more Price-oriented chains have not fared well in my area. One chain pulled out of the state altogether a few years ago, and another one just made huge cutbacks (with numerous closings). Publix, over the years, has been winning the market share battles, despite their higher prices. People want what they want.

I understand what you're saying about a government-run operation. But I think safeguards could be built in that also "guarantee" that VA-Military models could not be run nilly willy. They would not be allowed to lose money. I think a large percentage of the PO customers should contribute something toward their care. They should be "forced" to have a stake in their own lives. To "invest", as it were, in their own care. It's not spiritually or psychologically healthy for people to fasten upon the fanciful, unrealistic idea that the world is their "bread basket" and that they're entitled to be fed by the world. Or that the world somehow "owes them a living". I firmly support Ben Franklin's take on how the poor should be treated because his understanding of human nature is consistent with biblical teaching.

However, I also understand that there would be many others who would not be able to contribute a dime, e.g. the homeless who essentially live on the streets. They, too, would be able to receive completely free care, but on more restricted basis. Rationing, to one degree or another, has been going on for a long time. The story I related to Hcap about this homeless person on Medicaid being turned away is the God's honest truth. So, no one should expect that anyone, other than the highest level payers, receive unlimited care. (Heck...you can't even get unlimited care now in the private sector unless you are as rich as a Saudi king!) We should not, and I don't believe we'd have to, turn Capitalism on its head to offer a measure of aid to low to no income people. But to assure that we don't, we must turn people's thinking around to make sure they understand there really is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. We need to make everyone understand that health care is no more an inalienable right any more than food, shelter, clothing, education, etc. -- that even these necessities in life are privileges to be bought and paid for -- just like using any public conveyance system, just like driving on the highway, energy consumtion etc., etc. Just because something is a necessity in life, doesn't make it a right!

(Allow me digress just for a moment on this issue of "rights", since I'm touching on it. If food, for example, is a right or should be made a right, according to Hcap, then why would Jesus when instructing his disciples how to pray via the Lord's Prayer, tell them to pray for their "daily bread"? Was Jesus out of his gourd to ask us to pray for something that is supposedly a human right!? For something we're entitled to? For something that is owed to us? No where in the bible are believers ever instructed to pray for an actual inalienable right!) Yet, there is nothing more fundamental to our existence than food!)

I think my version of the Public Option would work pretty much the way the education system in this country does. While most kids are sent to a public school, there's still a large segment that are educated either at home or in a private institution. And we all know who, generally, receives the better education, don't we? But there will always be consumers who will prefer Quality over Price and vice versa.

Also, you mustn't forget that with the government entering into the Free Market (not to be confused with a power takeover of the Health Care Industry), this would also force private doctors and health care facilities to streamline their operations and cut costs, and to pass those savings on to their patients. I believe this would be no small benefit to all consumers. Competition is always good. And there will always be a large segment of the population who will prefer Quality over Price. My plan really does consider consumers -- all of them -- on both ends of the spectrum. I'm not looking at people as a dumb herd of cattle being loaded into cattle cars to be delivered to one stockyard. Cattle have no choices. Under ObamaCare, we will all eventually be treated as such because that is the goal of their wealth redistribution scheme. Under my plan, our humanity and dignity would be presevered by preserving the integrity of Real Choices -- not phony ones.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Early Xmas gift fo Boxmeister....


OPEN BOX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gmbOAAXtA&feature=related)

First of all, I resemble that sentiment. I am much better looking and sexier than the guys in the vid. :mad:

Secondly, you might end up as our premier drive-by ( hit 'n' run) poster, surpassing even the no substance "genius" of 46er. :D

Lastly, I give you E for Effort because the vid did elicit a chuckle or two out of me. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

[hcap]

I don't think that would happen. The "Public Option" would be a no-frills operation. And it's NOT insurance. It would a DIRECT care operation. Look at it this way: My version could be compared to a Wal-Mart, while privately run operations could be compared to a JC Pennys or a Macys..... Do you know how other single payer systems throughout the world work? And why there are large cost savings? And more importantly why a public option can avoid most class based "rationing" and restricting the poor as you put it to no frills Dr Wal-mart health fare

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

The rationing that takes place in U.S. health care is unnecessary. A number of studies (notably a General Accounting Office report in 1991 and a Congressional Budget Office report in 1993) show that there is more than enough money in our health care system to serve everyone if it were spent wisely. Administrative costs are at 31% of U.S. health spending, far higher than in other countries’ systems. These inflated costs are due to our failure to have a publicly financed, universal health care system. We spend about twice as much per person as Canada or most European nations, and still deny health care to many in need. A national health program could save enough on administration to assure access to care for all Americans, without rationing.
If you think this is wrong, please tell us how Dr Wal-mart would treat their no frills customer differently than Dr Macys. And save money? I've asked you repeatably to to give real world examples of this so-called tough love embodiment of Ben Franklins' snippet. You give only retail chain store analogies which fail to hold up with a not-for-profit endeavor. As riskman pointed out, the government does not have to profit. According to all the info about other successful single payer systems, when government administers and regulates, costs are reduced. Enough to avoid the stratification of treatment options between income groups. Universal access is achieved without directing some to Dr Wal-mart and others to Dr Macys. So a broad population based single system combined with REMOVING private insurers, private pharmaceutical control and runaway physician and hospital costs accomplish enough to treat all within the system equally.

.....However, I also understand that there would be many others who would not be able to contribute a dime, e.g. the homeless who essentially live on the streets. They, too, would be able to receive completely free care, but on more restricted basis. Rationing, to one degree or another, has been going on for a long time.

Ok, please explain "more restricted" in practical terms. I have been trying to pin you down on this, and don't think it is unreasonable for you to finally answer my question. You know THAT is the sticky detail that if you cannot answer other than in biblical or ideological terms will discredit you and your inappropriate Ben Franklin concept.

Answer this previous question..
.... does a poor mans' inoperable cancer get treated with fewer pain killers than a middle class man? Does a poor child with a cleft lip get to wait longer than a middle class child for cosmetic surgery?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
Lastly, I give you E for Effort because the vid did elicit a chuckle or two out of me. :ThmbUp:

Boxcar

E+ ... I almost didn't watch after a coupla seconds, but it had me giggling...

...and then I got the Boxcar reference for another chuckle... :D

[Spiderman]

If you listen to the libs and pay any attention to their biased charts, the U.S. health care system sucks eggs big time. So many countries rank ahead of us, if we believe those charts. If this is the case, then was has the King of Saudi Arabia flown all the way over here to a NYC hospital for treatment? Enlightened Europe is so much closer, isn't it? The UK with its excellent care. Or what about France with their care? Or Switzerland with theirs?

Or maybe other socialized countries have better care? Why didn't the King fly to Cuba? Or why not to Venezuela? Or how about Canada, which loves to pride herself on the quality of her care? :rolleyes: But the King with all his money decides to come here to the U.S. because no doubt he believes this is where he'll get the best care for his money. I find it revealing that he didn't fly to any socialist country -- that he gave the cold shoulder to all socialist countries -- where the care is allegedly so much better than our own. :rolleyes:

How does that old adage go: Money talks, and everything else walks?

Boxcar

That is quite an example, using the King of Saudi Arabia. Could there be any other factor for his coming to US? Possible that a specialist for his malady is located in US; going to Cuba or Venezuela would be out-of-favor for political reasons. How much farther is the US than Europe than from Saudi Arabia, by private jet? The Us treats the rich better.

Your statement is typical of the trite comments that are meant to disparage attempts at better health care. Yes, the US ranks way behind other countries in providing universal health care for their citizens.

[Tom]

Yes, the US ranks way behind other countries in providing universal health care for their citizens.

Tell that to the millions of illegals who clog up our system and walk away worth FREE health care while real Americans have to pay for it. PROVIDING anything is NOT the role of government.

[Spiderman]

Tell that to the millions of illegals who clog up our system and walk away worth FREE health care while real Americans have to pay for it. PROVIDING anything is NOT the role of government.

Illegal immigration reform is necessary for the security of US. The diversity of the US population is different than many of the countries that provide universal health to its citizens. Though, France and England are similar in that respect to the US.

Primarily, costs have run amok. The providers of care: insurance companies, hospital corporations, Big Pharma, medical equipment manufaturers, among others, need to be restrained through cost controls. We are paying more than the other countries and receiving less.

Health care should not be denied to indigent people, especially, children. People with pre-existing conditions should not be denied health care. The Health Care Reform bill has several positive clauses and is a great first step. I support it and vote independent.

[boxcar]

That is quite an example, using the King of Saudi Arabia. Could there be any other factor for his coming to US? Possible that a specialist for his malady is located in US; going to Cuba or Venezuela would be out-of-favor for political reasons. How much farther is the US than Europe than from Saudi Arabia, by private jet? The Us treats the rich better.

Your statement is typical of the trite comments that are meant to disparage attempts at better health care. Yes, the US ranks way behind other countries in providing universal health care for their citizens.

And no such specialist(s) can be found in all the Enlightened Land Of Eurotopia? Or any other state with socialized medicine? Not even Canada!? (Of course, I could understand the king's wisdom in avoiding Alberta like the plague. :rolleyes: )

And let me give you a clue about how how "terrible" health care here is in the U.S. Tens and tens of thousands of people come to this "country-from-hell" annually to be treated by U.S. doctors. I can't even begin to imagine how many, but judging from a conversations I've had with a friend's niece who works up in John Hopkins (kinda world famous, I think), thousands come to the Hopkins' facilities alone from all over the world annually. And very many of those come here from....(another drum roll, please) Canada and Eurotopia. Therefore, the number has to be huge when all other U.S. facilities are considered.

Of course, liberals are going to paint the U.S. as having stone-age quality health care compared to the rest of the socialistic, globalism-loving world. Makes sense to me. After all, the U.S. is what's wrong with world! The U.S. is the scourge of the world! Haven't you heard!? Haven't you heard that Soros believes the U.S. is a huge impediment to progress in the world -- "progress" toward the establishment of the new world order, i.e. one world government? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So, please spare me your TRITE liberal drivel about how terrible things are in the nation that people will literally die to come here to live from all over the globe. We are Number One in Immigration. We are the most desired country under the sun in which to live. I don't hear or read about people flocking in droves to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or to any of the "Religion of Peace" states in the Mideast, etc., etc, etc. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Have a great day,
Boxcar

[hcap]

Otherwise known as medical tourism. Once again money talks and those that can't afford it go elsewhere. As I said in the start of this thread we have certain procedures here that are top notch. But many run of the mill medical treatments can be gotten at much less cost. I would bet those coming to the US are greatly outnumbered by those LEAVING to go abroad. Using the Saudi Sheik as an example is quite misleading.

http://www.healism.com/

According to the National Coalition on Health Care, more than 500,000 Americans traveled abroad to receive medical and dental work in 2006. And this is not an isolated trend. Every year, millions of patients from around the globe flock to some of the hottest medical tourism destinations in order to receive five-star treatment at unbelievable prices. Experts predict that by 2012, medical tourism will grow to be a $100 billion business with more than 780,000,000 patients traveling abroad to receive care from foreign doctors, dentists, and hospitals.
And run of the mill treatment and procedures make up by far the greatest costs of health care system.

[boxcar]

Otherwise known as medical tourism. Once again money talks and those that can't afford it go elsewhere.

That's right. Money does Talk. And you know what the SMART MONEY says?: The best care in the world is right here in the U.S.! That's why we get so many of those monied "tourists". They want and demand the best money can buy. And they should have every right to do that. They're just consumers desiring to buy levels of quality that is commensurate with their ability to pay. What evil CLASS bigots they are, eh 'cap? I mean...one would think that they would bring all the not-so-well heeled fellow Eurotopians over here with them to receive EQUAL treatment! Yes? This is class discrimination at its worst. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[delayjf]

Perhaps if would be cost effective to simply fly those who cannot afford healthcare down to Brazil for treatment.

I mean 3k for a hip replacement, what are they using for anesthesia, starting fluid and a cloth? Any explaination as to why it is so cheap?

[Tom]

Good one Jeff!
Why are there no illegals busting down the doors to Brazil, hcap?

[hcap]

Over 1/2 million Americans go abroad for procedures that work. Even considering travel expenses it is still a growing industry. Just pointing out that those going abroad VASTLY outnumber the other direction. Contrary to boxcats' assertion, but in line with the cost issues I raised

Personally, I would think twice. But medical
l outsourcing and globalized medical tourism appear to follow the free market. And looks fairly effective judging by the numbers Are you guys claiming markets DON'T work? Sounds to me like boxcars' Dr. Wal-mart is action.

[boxcar]

Do you know how other single payer systems throughout the world work? And why there are large cost savings? And more importantly why a public option can avoid most class based "rationing" and restricting the poor as you put it to no frills Dr Wal-mart health fare.

Yeah, I know how they work. Those Marxist-oriented systems use Karl's "means test", i.e. "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs". This is also known as the Trickle Up Poverty approach. (Gessh...wish I had coined this phrase. :D ) It's also the Equal Outcomes Approach. And it's the simplistic one-size-fits-all approach. And fer sure, it's the wealth redistribution approach.

Being the die-hard Marxist you really are, 'cap -- what you want is a "classless" society, which for all practical intent and purposes occurs with all Two-Class societies because there is no multi-tier level involving the Masses below the Rich. What you really want is to integrate the classes (see the above paragraph).

But the last thing you want is an avoidance of "class-based" rationing, despite what you said above. There is no such thing! What you really want IS "class-based" rationing above the poverty level. You want an "equal" distribution of rationing that doesn't profile the classes, which is grossly unfair.

Tell me what part of my post #84 you didn't understand. I provided a bunch of examples of class-based "rationing" that occurs day-in, day-out in our free market society. This occurs every time we buy something and pay for it within our MEANS. Those "mean tests" occur at every class level in our society! Try walking into a Lexus dealership and driving out with a $37,000. shining beauty by plunkin' down a $1,000. bill as final payment and watch them call the men in white to lock you up, all while you're screaming, kickin' and yellin' that you can't pay more and that life isn't fair that someone else can, though! And because they can, you SHOULD be able! They will toss you in a padded cell and put your big mouth in a straight jacket to boot. :lol: :lol: :lol:

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq

If you think this is wrong, please tell us how Dr Wal-mart would treat their no frills customer differently than Dr Macys. And save money? I've asked you repeatably to to give real world examples of this so-called tough love embodiment of Ben Franklins' snippet. You give only retail chain store analogies which fail to hold up with a not-for-profit endeavor. As riskman pointed out, the government does not have to profit. According to all the info about other successful single payer systems, when government administers and regulates, costs are reduced. Enough to avoid the stratification of treatment options between income groups. Universal access is achieved without directing some to Dr Wal-mart and others to Dr Macys. So a broad population based single system combined with REMOVING private insurers, private pharmaceutical control and runaway physician and hospital costs accomplish enough to treat all within the system equally.
Ok, please explain "more restricted" in practical terms. I have been trying to pin you down on this, and don't think it is unreasonable for you to finally answer my question. You know THAT is the sticky detail that if you cannot answer other than in biblical or ideological terms will discredit you and your inappropriate Ben Franklin concept.

Answer this previous question..

I'll answer if you answer all my questions you have avoided. In fact, I'll answer when you tell me whether or not RATIONING would have to become an important, integral part of any socialized medicine scheme. I have repeatedly asked you this and you have remained silent.

Yeah...and here's another thing that a non-profit government operation doesn't have to do with a singer payer system: As a MONOPOLY, they don't have to provide good quality care. They can provide any level of quality they want to whoever they want. Monopolies DO NOT serve the Public Interest! A free market is healthy and vibrant only when there is lively competition within it!

This was precisely what FastMan (oh, wait...you might know him as "Mr. Filth") wrote in his post #60. As he essentially said, Abe Lincoln freed the slaves, but you want to put all Americans back on the Ruling Class' Plantation wherein they would get to call all the shots for their "stupid" slaves! You would want to virtually make all Americans slaves by having the government shackle our free choices -- CHOICE -- the MOST FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM of THEM ALL!. Physical shackles wouldn't be necessary for welfare queens and entitlement addicts -- except for the freedom-loving, independent few amongst us. Then the U.S. government would need to shut us up by locking us up!

No, thanks. I'll take a pass.

Boxcar

[Spiderman]

And no such specialist(s) can be found in all the Enlightened Land Of Eurotopia? Or any other state with socialized medicine? Not even Canada!? (Of course, I could understand the king's wisdom in avoiding Alberta like the plague. :rolleyes: )

And let me give you a clue about how how "terrible" health care here is in the U.S. Tens and tens of thousands of people come to this "country-from-hell" annually to be treated by U.S. doctors. I can't even begin to imagine how many, but judging from a conversations I've had with a friend's niece who works up in John Hopkins (kinda world famous, I think), thousands come to the Hopkins' facilities alone from all over the world annually. And very many of those come here from....(another drum roll, please) Canada and Eurotopia. Therefore, the number has to be huge when all other U.S. facilities are considered.

Of course, liberals are going to paint the U.S. as having stone-age quality health care compared to the rest of the socialistic, globalism-loving world. Makes sense to me. After all, the U.S. is what's wrong with world! The U.S. is the scourge of the world! Haven't you heard!? Haven't you heard that Soros believes the U.S. is a huge impediment to progress in the world -- "progress" toward the establishment of the new world order, i.e. one world government? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: So, please spare me your TRITE liberal drivel about how terrible things are in the nation that people will literally die to come here to live from all over the globe. We are Number One in Immigration. We are the most desired country under the sun in which to live. I don't hear or read about people flocking in droves to Russia, or China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or to any of the "Religion of Peace" states in the Mideast, etc., etc, etc. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Have a great day,
Boxcar
Good to find someone from dumb-down USA and get a personal glimpse at their masturbatory rants. You won't achieve anything here, except to show who you are.

[Tom]

You wanna give us a point by point debate on his post?

[boxcar]

Over 1/2 million Americans go abroad for procedures that work. Even considering travel expenses it is still a growing industry. Just pointing out that those going abroad VASTLY outnumber the other direction. Contrary to boxcats' assertion, but in line with the cost issues I raised

Personally, I would think twice. But medical
l outsourcing and globalized medical tourism appear to follow the free market. And looks fairly effective judging by the numbers Are you guys claiming markets DON'T work? Sounds to me like boxcars' Dr. Wal-mart is action.

Prove it.

Perhaps the lower classes of Americans do seek "Wal Mart"-type quality care elsewhere because they can't afford it (in which case, we once again would have classic examples of the free market "unwritten law" working which says consumers tend to pay for goods or services that is commensurate with their ability to pay -- WHICH IS HOW IT SHOULD BE!

Conversely, the "rich" in the world will tend to migrate to this country because they want the best quality possible and they have the MEANS to pay it! Which again...is precisely how it should be.

Under my plan, price-conscious American consumers would be able to save a ton of money on airfare by spending it right here at home for their treatments, wouldn't they? :bang: :bang: :bang: Under my Plan, we'd have the best of both worlds: Eurotopia right here in our backyard with my version of the Public Option and good ol' fashioned Americana right next store offering superior quality care.

Personally, if I had been you, 'cap, I would have thought twice before banging out this last knee-jerk response! Thank you,for supporting what has been my major argument all along, albeit unwittingly. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: We certainly do have my "Wal Mart/Macy's" analogy at work here. The rich sheiks fly here to shop at "Macy's" for the best care at higher prices, and the lower class Americans fly over there (wherever "there" is) to pay for lower quality care at cheaper prices. Works for me!

Boxcar
P.S. I have long maintained that I really don't think I'm the sharpest tool in the shed; however, it may at times look that way, but only due to the twisted minds of Liberals in the world. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[boxcar]

You wanna give us a point by point debate on his post?

Leave the airhead be. He's just another cheap shot, drive-by artist. Besides, Libs have to find something at which to excel. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[hcap]

Tell me what part of my post #84 you didn't understand. I provided a bunch of examples of class-based "rationing" that occurs day-in, day-out in our free market societyUsing for profit businesses is not applicable. Profit is not what it is all about. And that is why all existing western industrialized health care systems OUTPERFORM ours. All you have done is point to one of the few very successful single payer systems that we have and postulate what you THINK is an improvement by adding some nonsense about rationing aid to the poor in in order to re-make them in your own egotistical image.

Once more answer this question.
.. does a poor mans' inoperable cancer get treated with fewer pain killers than a middle class man? Does a poor child with a cleft lip get to wait longer than a middle class child for cosmetic surgery?
Of course the correct answer is there should be no difference in treatment within the bounds of a single payer system. You know that but won't answer for fear of discrediting ALL tour endless pages of ideological rhetoric.

And that is why I suspect you won't answer now.

In either case my part in this discussion is over.

[boxcar]

Using for profit businesses is not applicable. Profit is not what it is all about. And that is why all existing western industrialized health care systems OUTPERFORM ours. All you have done is point to one of the few very successful single payer systems that we have and postulate what you THINK is an improvement by adding some nonsense about rationing aid to the poor in in order to re-make them in your own egotistical image.

No I haven't. I've added the all-important elements of FREE CHOICE and perhaps the greatest motive or incentive of all for EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT.

Okay...I need, yet, another drum roll for my buddy 'cap. (Someone please, can I get that drum roll for me...okay, I hear it. Thank you.) 'cap, brace yourself 'cause I'm going to reveal another Great Necessity in Life:

In addition to human beings needing to earn money in order to survive in this life, there is no greater incentive for striving for Exceptionalism in society than the Profit Motive. Money is what makes the world turn, Mr. Hcap. :bang: :bang: :bang: What has made this country so great are our personal freedoms and our fantastic free-market/free enterprise system. These have put this nation heads and shoulders above all others in the earth.
There's nothing inherently evil with a fair profit, Mr. 'cap. If Necessity is the mother of all invention, then the desire for personal gain (profit) is a nose behind Necessity! And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this because we all need money, anyway, to survive. :bang: :bang:

I just related to Mosty, in another thread, the Lukian parable of the Nobleman and the Minas. Did not the Nobleman praise his servants for earning profits on his money? And did he not generously reward their success!? And did he not sharply rebuke and punish the unfaithful servant for not even having a modicum of good sense to bank his mina so that he would collect interest on it?

And what about the Wise Woman in Proverbs who, apparently, was one savvy, industrious and ambitious businesswoman who knew how to turn a profit in different ventures?

Take away the profit motive and we're left with inferior products. There is no incentive to produce the best for the least possible cost.

Once more answer this question.

Of course the correct answer is there should be no difference in treatment within the bounds of a single payer system. You know that but won't answer for fear of discrediting ALL tour endless pages of ideological rhetoric.

And that is why I suspect you won't answer now.

In either case my part in this discussion is over.

And you still haven't answered mine: Under ObamaCare, is there rationing? Is not rationing a critically important and integral part of any socialized medicine scheme in order to achieve costs control? You, too, know full well what the answer is! Rationing of health care has always been a fact of life in the Public and Private Sectors. And, yes, everyone should receive the amount and quality of care commensurate with their ability to pay! That's the way things are in free market system. People receive what they pay for! :bang: :bang: :bang: Every single day, consumers apply the "means test" all around the world to their purchases. Some bureaucrat connected with Medicaid decided that that formerly homeless acquaintance of mine should not receive his replacement hip! And no matter how emotionally tough that decision was for him, his brother and even me (believe it or not!) -- when it comes down to brass tacks, we had to come to grips with the inescapable fact that he didn't have a God-given right to that surgery! He has no more right to that surgery than he does for his daily bread! And he has no right to think he was entitled to it!

Therefore, under any system of care, health care is limited, save for kings, queens, presidents, the Soros', the Buffets, the Trumps, etc., etc. of the world. I do not begrudge any rich man or woman of their money or what benefits their money can buy. Neither should you!

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm going to just start automatically closing threads that take these vicious, personal attack slants...

I've really had enough.