How To Trick A Bluedog

dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I believe the current system is failing the common man. Many see the "evil corporations" as the problem. Many see the govt. as the problem. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I have an old college friend who is currently working to get Toomey elected in PA. We often debate about healthcare, and always end up right back at this same point.

He doesn't trust the government, I don't trust the corporations. Is the answer all one or the other? No, like doc pointed out, it is usually somewhere in between.

I think a good starting point would be for the government to ban the health insurers from being for-profit. This is how it works in all the other rich capitalist democracies that have universal socialized health care. Does competition decrease once the profit motive is removed? Fuck no! It is not in the best interest of these companies to go out of business. Take a look at how it works in Germany or Switzerland. Profit motive was removed, and still they compete. The higher ups still make a very comfortable living, but are not allowed to take in multi-million dollar salaries at the expense of the health of the citizens in that nation.

I also think administrative costs play a big role. Currently, we pay over 20% to administrative costs. In Switzerland or Taiwan, that number is more like 5-8%. Our current system is directly to blame. How efficient is is to submit all the paperwork, get denied, and have to do it all over again, only to have the same thing happen? Taiwan would be a good ole model to emulate here. That smart card they use is ingenius and makes everything much more efficient and smooth. Not to mention, it would reduce the cost curve in a meaningful way.

Right now we pay about 17% of GDP for health insurance. The next highest? Switzerland, at about 12%. But they cover all their citizens and no one ever goes bankrupt.

If all you have to say on the issue is gloom and doom about a 'government takeover' (what does that even fucking mean?) then go elsewhere.
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
I believe the current system is failing the common man. Many see the "evil corporations" as the problem. Many see the govt. as the problem. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I have an old college friend who is currently working to get Toomey elected in PA. We often debate about healthcare, and always end up right back at this same point.

He doesn't trust the government, I don't trust the corporations. Is the answer all one or the other? No, like doc pointed out, it is usually somewhere in between.

I think a good starting point would be for the government to ban the health insurers from being for-profit. This is how it works in all the other rich capitalist democracies that have universal socialized health care. Does competition decrease once the profit motive is removed? Fuck no! It is not in the best interest of these companies to go out of business. Take a look at how it works in Germany or Switzerland. Profit motive was removed, and still they compete. The higher ups still make a very comfortable living, but are not allowed to take in multi-million dollar salaries at the expense of the health of the citizens in that nation.

I also think administrative costs play a big role. Currently, we pay over 20% to administrative costs. In Switzerland or Taiwan, that number is more like 5-8%. Our current system is directly to blame. How efficient is is to submit all the paperwork, get denied, and have to do it all over again, only to have the same thing happen? Taiwan would be a good ole model to emulate here. That smart card they use is ingenius and makes everything much more efficient and smooth. Not to mention, it would reduce the cost curve in a meaningful way.

Right now we pay about 17% of GDP for health insurance. The next highest? Switzerland, at about 12%. But they cover all their citizens and no one ever goes bankrupt.

If all you have to say on the issue is gloom and doom about a 'government takeover' (what does that even fucking mean?) then go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Word. The experiments with proper health care strategies for modern, 1st world, enlightened nations have been completed. The U.S. is not leading in this field - we are failing.

There is no single business model for all industries. For health care- we all must stand up for what is best for the populous.

Call it whatever you want. If you want Fox to label your boogie-man for you - keep fearing the "S" word.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I love saying 'universal socialized health care'. Because when I talk about these health care socialists, it is to point out how they do much better with their socialist policies then we do with whatever the fuck our current policy is.

What would you call our current approach? The 'let em die in the streets' approach? Or the 'take their house when they can't pay for medication' approach? Or how about the 'lets give a multi million dollar bonus to the asshole who dropped them once they got sick and his cohort who denied them for their pre existing condition after that' approach? Too wordy?
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
BigTitLvr said:
Faux News tactic 101- "bring out the 'S' word". Capitalism is good for nearly all industry, but not health care because: Human life is more valuable than profits.

You mistake me: I am not a liberal or socialist. I am a conservative. But you have been brainwashed to believe a conservative is only a republican. This is typical of Neo-Cons: if you don't like the implications- simply change the definition of a word!

Conservative believe in small government. But certainly part of the role of government is to regulate industries which would infringe on the rights of its citizens- like health insurance company death panels.

It NOT out of the sync with conservatives to request that Doctors provide the heath care, and a government office is the record keeper; their ONLY role - in a truly conservative government.
Click to expand...
DING DING DING!! This is the laugh of the day - you're a conservative. Yeah, you and Dennis Kucinich, LOL.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I laugh at the few folks on this forum who seem to be stuck on labels and the left/right dichotomy. Get over it!

Defining, confining, and sinking deeper.
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
I believe the current system is failing the common man. Many see the "evil corporations" as the problem. Many see the govt. as the problem. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I have an old college friend who is currently working to get Toomey elected in PA. We often debate about healthcare, and always end up right back at this same point.

He doesn't trust the government, I don't trust the corporations. Is the answer all one or the other? No, like doc pointed out, it is usually somewhere in between.

I think a good starting point would be for the government to ban the health insurers from being for-profit. This is how it works in all the other rich capitalist democracies that have universal socialized health care. Does competition decrease once the profit motive is removed? Fuck no! It is not in the best interest of these companies to go out of business. Take a look at how it works in Germany or Switzerland. Profit motive was removed, and still they compete. The higher ups still make a very comfortable living, but are not allowed to take in multi-million dollar salaries at the expense of the health of the citizens in that nation.

I also think administrative costs play a big role. Currently, we pay over 20% to administrative costs. In Switzerland or Taiwan, that number is more like 5-8%. Our current system is directly to blame. How efficient is is to submit all the paperwork, get denied, and have to do it all over again, only to have the same thing happen? Taiwan would be a good ole model to emulate here. That smart card they use is ingenius and makes everything much more efficient and smooth. Not to mention, it would reduce the cost curve in a meaningful way.

Right now we pay about 17% of GDP for health insurance. The next highest? Switzerland, at about 12%. But they cover all their citizens and no one ever goes bankrupt.

If all you have to say on the issue is gloom and doom about a 'government takeover' (what does that even fucking mean?) then go elsewhere.
Click to expand...
I've worked for Non-profits. It's a bit confusing but basically they aren't barred from making a profit. They just can't distribute their "profits" to shareholders or individuals. They must retain them for the betterment of the organization. What does that mean? Well it's not real well defined. A common misconception is that nonprofit workers earn less money. This is not always the case. Non profits often use their "profits" to recruit and attract the talent they want to work at their organization. Of course they get many tax benefits as well. But they essentially operate just like a regular company in most other aspects, where it's still all about the bottom line. :joint:

BigTitLvr said:
Word. The experiments with proper health care strategies for modern, 1st world, enlightened nations have been completed. The U.S. is not leading in this field - we are failing.

There is no single business model for all industries. For health care- we all must stand up for what is best for the populous.

Call it whatever you want. If you want Fox to label your boogie-man for you - keep fearing the "S" word.
Click to expand...
Not all of us are Fox news junkies. In fact I seldom watch Fox news. Why are people always attacking conservatives with this whole "Fox News" thing? The same could be said about libs and MSNBC or NPR. :peace:
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
That last part was definitely not directed at you Doc. You have a better handle on shit than a lot of folks who post here.

Good info on the non profits
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
That last part was definitely not directed at you Doc. You have a better handle on shit than a lot of folks who post here.

Good info on the non profits
Click to expand...
I don't know about that but thanks anyway.:lol: The shitstorm isn't over yet. In fact it may get a whole lot worse before it gets better. We should put aside the partisan b.s. and work together to find a real solution to the most pressing problems facing us today. I mean, our politicians sure as hell aren't doing it. :shock:
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I was getting at just that, what you just said. Heated debates are often fun, but the partisan stuff just seems silly. I could make a case for either side as being the hero or the villain, it is easy to do. Which is what makes it pointless. Solving the problem is the better but trickier thing to do
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
DING DING DING!! This is the laugh of the day - you're a conservative. Yeah, you and Dennis Kucinich, LOL.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Or STUNNED is more like it.

Do you really mean to say that it is UNconservative to care about human life MORE than profits?

Wow. I see we have nothing more to discuss. :leaf:
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
doc111 said:
I've worked for Non-profits. It's a bit confusing but basically they aren't barred from making a profit. They just can't distribute their "profits" to shareholders or individuals. They must retain them for the betterment of the organization. What does that mean? Well it's not real well defined. A common misconception is that nonprofit workers earn less money. This is not always the case. Non profits often use their "profits" to recruit and attract the talent they want to work at their organization. Of course they get many tax benefits as well. But they essentially operate just like a regular company in most other aspects, where it's still all about the bottom line. :joint:

Not all of us are Fox news junkies. In fact I seldom watch Fox news. Why are people always attacking conservatives with this whole "Fox News" thing? The same could be said about libs and MSNBC or NPR. :peace:
Click to expand...

Regarding non-profits, successful ones tend to balloon in size and salaries over time, don't they?

That's why I personally believe doctors should be paid directly by the government, unless the citizen chooses his own plan. No one in government is allowed to have a half-million dollar salary so cost are kept low, and the public service should offer much needed price competition to the health insurance industry.

But that is not the bill Obama is offering so the point is moot.

Sorry to over-generalize a republican's news habits. I guess the arguments I hear sound pretty familiar to the ridiculous statements I hear from Fox. I can't believe people are that scared of their government- regarding health care. Just stand up for soundly written legislation. Watching FOX is like listening to the Sunday church lecture; fear! fear! fear! I am not afraid of terrorists or the word "socialism".
:peace:
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
unless the citizen chooses his own plan

Another good idea, if you don't like the idea of universal socialized health care, opt out and get your own. Takes away one of the fear-based talking points that makes the debate go downhill
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
dukeofbaja said:
unless the citizen chooses his own plan

Another good idea, if you don't like the idea of universal socialized health care, opt out and get your own. Takes away one of the fear-based talking points that makes the debate go downhill
Click to expand...
There won't be any alternatives. The goal is to destroy private insurance. It is illegal now to set up a business to deliver letters in competition with the postal service. If Obama gets his way, it would be illegal for doctors to operate a private practice and take money for services in competition with Obamacare.
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member

JUDGE KITHIL wrote: "I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded

with so many wrong-headed elements."











"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."







"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required


to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees,

let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."


JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from

those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations

(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend

an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system,

and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to

make the plan financially sound for their future."

 Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
 
Dragline

Dragline

Well-Known Member
max420thc said:

JUDGE KITHIL wrote: "I have reviewed selected sections of the bill, and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded

with so many wrong-headed elements."









"Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of both Social Security and Medicare programs."







"I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required


to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees,

let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there."


JUDGE KITHIL continued: "Other problems I have with this bill include:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from

those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations

(such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend

an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling.)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system,

and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to

make the plan financially sound for their future."

 Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls , Texas
Click to expand...



I hope you were able to forward that email to 10 people in time so you don't have 10 years of bad luck. LOL :mrgreen:
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
There won't be any alternatives. The goal is to destroy private insurance. It is illegal now to set up a business to deliver letters in competition with the postal service. If Obama gets his way, it would be illegal for doctors to operate a private practice and take money for services in competition with Obamacare.
Click to expand...

WHAT?! Jesus Christ you're thick! Yes, the current bill sucks balls. But it is NOT meant to destroy private insurance companies. It is a fucking give-away to private insurance companies! They gave Obama and Baucus HUGE amounts of money to campaign and he is paying them back. It mandates any American without insurance MUST BUY IT from private insurance companies. And if they can't afford it, the government WILL HELP YOU PAY FOR IT.

You really don't have a clue what this bill and debate is about, do you?

What America needs is protection from the private, profit-based system of health care where they are refused life-saving treatment to reach a profit margin.

This bill aids in that goal, slightly. I would LOVE to get rid of all profit based health insurance companies. I think that would solve America's epic disease & chronic health problems. But that is my opinion. This bill does NON of that.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
BigTitLvr said:
WHAT?! Jesus Christ you're thick! Yes, the current bill sucks balls. But it is NOT meant to destroy private insurance companies. It is a fucking give-away to private insurance companies! They gave Obama and Baucus HUGE amounts of money to campaign and he is paying them back. It mandates any American without insurance MUST BUY IT from private insurance companies. And if they can't afford it, the government WILL HELP YOU PAY FOR IT.

You really don't have a clue what this bill and debate is about, do you?

What America needs is protection from the private, profit-based system of health care where they are refused life-saving treatment to reach a profit margin.

This bill aids in that goal, slightly. I would LOVE to get rid of all profit based health insurance companies. I think that would solve America's epic disease & chronic health problems. But that is my opinion. This bill does NON of that.
Click to expand...
Scores of democrats have said on and off the record that this is an incremental step toward singlepayer and they won't stop until they get there. Now quit acting like you know wtf you're talking about because we're all getting a headache from rolling our eyes at you.
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
BigTitLvr said:
WHAT?! Jesus Christ you're thick! Yes, the current bill sucks balls. But it is NOT meant to destroy private insurance companies. It is a fucking give-away to private insurance companies! They gave Obama and Baucus HUGE amounts of money to campaign and he is paying them back. It mandates any American without insurance MUST BUY IT from private insurance companies. And if they can't afford it, the government WILL HELP YOU PAY FOR IT.

You really don't have a clue what this bill and debate is about, do you?

What America needs is protection from the private, profit-based system of health care where they are refused life-saving treatment to reach a profit margin.

This bill aids in that goal, slightly. I would LOVE to get rid of all profit based health insurance companies. I think that would solve America's epic disease & chronic health problems. But that is my opinion. This bill does NON of that.
Click to expand...
Why is nobody concerned about giving the govt. more control? At what point do we say "Enough!"? I think history has taught us that most govts start out with noble intentions but we know how power and money corrupt.:fire: What better way to gain absolute control over a populace than to do it bit by bit so they hardly notice. It doesn't feel right to me. I don't think that the net effect of Obamacare will be positive. It may not be a whole lot worse for a while but I think it will end up costing us more than it does now. What will it be next? They will probably say that food is a basic human right and that the govts job should be to oversee the distribution and control of the food supply. When that happens we can all turn in our copy of the bill of rights because we will be slaves to the govt. :wall:
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
Again, I think we need to put on our tin foil hats, folks.

It is kinda pointless for us to even have this debate when folks are using words like 'Obamacare'. Words have power. That is why the folks on the right side of this forum are using the term 'nuclear option' rather than 'reconciliation', because which one sounds worse? Why do only 44% of Americans support letting homosexuals serve openly in the army, yet 60% of those same folks support letting gays and lesbians do the same? Words have power. So what are you trying to accomplish when you refer to a 'health insurance reform bill', which more or less describes what we have in front of us, as 'Obamacare'? It is an obvious sign of your bias and sel serving agenda when you do that.

Again, for fuck's sake folks, arguing that this pathetic bill which is in front of us, one which does not even incorporate the hugely popular public option, will 'destroy private health insurance' and make it 'illegal for doctors to operate a private practice and take money for services in competition with Obamacare' is absurd. Not that those statements were made, they were only impled via a slippery slope....

Ahhh fuck it. Useless to try to point out that our health care system is the laughing stock of all other rich capitalist democracies and that all the others who have tried universal socialized health care love it. Utterly useless....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top