Why do libs need to control the corporations?

[Rob's House]

It's interesting to me that libs demonize pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc for "gouging" the public by taking more profits than they, the enlightened and informed libs, find to be appropriate.

 

My question is, instead of collectively putting hundreds of millions of $$s into electing self-serving corrupt politicians, why don't they start their own insurance companies.

 

Since they're great humanitarians they can offer better prices and better services than their competition. They can develop drugs and sell them at just slightly over production cost and pay the researchers with free pizza coupons.

 

What am I missing here?

[KD in CA]

What am I missing here?

 

Starting and running companies actually takes intelligence and hard work. It's much easier to show up at 9, leave at 5, take a full hour lunch break and then B word about how it's unfair that you have less stuff than your neighbor. And easier still to just elect politicians who promise to steal from your neighbor and give you free stuff.

[keepthefaith]

It's interesting to me that libs demonize pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc for "gouging" the public by taking more profits than they, the enlightened and informed libs, find to be appropriate.

 

My question is, instead of collectively putting hundreds of millions of $$s into electing self-serving corrupt politicians, why don't they start their own insurance companies.

 

Since they're great humanitarians they can offer better prices and better services than their competition. They can develop drugs and sell them at just slightly over production cost and pay the researchers with free pizza coupons.

 

What am I missing here?

 

Companies are evil. They pay the top people big bucks and give them lots of perks while paying the "little guy" only as much as they have to. When times get tough the big cheeses layoff a bunch of the little guys (ruining their lives) such that they can preserve their fat paychecks and perks. The little guys are powerless against the big cheeses and are beholden to them for their modest existence. The big cheeses also discriminate against gays, women, minorities and any other groups of people that they don't like. The big cheeses are simply using the little guys knowing that the little guys can't think for themselves and are forced to show up to their drone jobs everyday just to make ends meet.

 

Liberal Government control is the only way the little guy has a chance.

[....lybob]

It's interesting to me that libs demonize pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc for "gouging" the public by taking more profits than they, the enlightened and informed libs, find to be appropriate.

 

My question is, instead of collectively putting hundreds of millions of $$s into electing self-serving corrupt politicians, why don't they start their own insurance companies.

 

Since they're great humanitarians they can offer better prices and better services than their competition. They can develop drugs and sell them at just slightly over production cost and pay the researchers with free pizza coupons.

 

What am I missing here?

 

You mean like competing? like being able to import our drugs from anywhere? or making insurance companies compete over state lines? It's not "Libs" who oppose that.

[keepthefaith]

You mean like competing? like being able to import our drugs from anywhere? or making insurance companies compete over state lines? It's not "Libs" who oppose that.

 

For sure, the libs didn't want health care sold over state lines in the recent health care bill. It was suggested, offered and soundly rejected.

[Hossage]

I cant answer this question. I dont know.

[drnykterstein]

It's interesting to me that libs demonize pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, etc for "gouging" the public by taking more profits than they, the enlightened and informed libs, find to be appropriate.

 

My question is, instead of collectively putting hundreds of millions of $$s into electing self-serving corrupt politicians, why don't they start their own insurance companies.

 

Since they're great humanitarians they can offer better prices and better services than their competition. They can develop drugs and sell them at just slightly over production cost and pay the researchers with free pizza coupons.

 

What am I missing here?

 

Why is gouging in quotes? There are many humanitarian organizations that do just what you describe. They lack a lot of funding and sometimes (like ACORN) they get demonized in a national witch hunt sponsored by Fox News (a corporation).

[3rdnlng]

Why is gouging in quotes? There are many humanitarian organizations that do just what you describe. They lack a lot of funding and sometimes (like ACORN) they get demonized in a national witch hunt sponsored by Fox News (a corporation).

 

Classic Conner. ACORN is/was/will be a corrupt organization accepting the premise of importing children for prostitution purposes while simultaneously promoting voter fraud. Fox News was way out of line in reporting this I suppose.

[Rob's House]

Why is gouging in quotes? There are many humanitarian organizations that do just what you describe. They lack a lot of funding and sometimes (like ACORN) they get demonized in a national witch hunt sponsored by Fox News (a corporation).

 

Dude, come on man. A little consistency, please.

 

Where do the evil pharmaceutical companies get their funding?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Dude, come on man. A little consistency, please.

 

Where do the evil pharmaceutical companies get their funding?

 

 

The government. Without Medicare these companies would be small fries in the corporate world

[Rob's House]

The government. Without Medicare these companies would be small fries in the corporate world

 

Circular argument. Government decides to pick up the tab for prescription bills (passed by Bush, I know. It's still a lib move even if signed into law by a lib in "compassionate conservative" clothes) and now government claims they have authority to control the industry. It's the equivalent of a rich guy picking up everyone's tab at McDonald's and deciding that he's now entitled to run the store. But this is a tangent.

 

Back to the point at hand, since the pharmaceutical companies are "gouging" medicare and the consumers, why don't all the millionaire libs start a pharmaceutical company and only make a "reasonable" profit charging "reasonable" prices?

[birdog1960]

Circular argument. Government decides to pick up the tab for prescription bills (passed by Bush, I know. It's still a lib move even if signed into law by a lib in "compassionate conservative" clothes) and now government claims they have authority to control the industry. It's the equivalent of a rich guy picking up everyone's tab at McDonald's and deciding that he's now entitled to run the store. But this is a tangent.

 

Back to the point at hand, since the pharmaceutical companies are "gouging" medicare and the consumers, why don't all the millionaire libs start a pharmaceutical company and only make a "reasonable" profit charging "reasonable" prices?

private insurance is not considered a solution by many liberals. it has not controlled costs or provided for cost effective care and never will as long as there is fee for service. do more, make more doesn't work in health care. thus single payer with outcomes based reimbursement is the favored model of many progressives and we have taken the first step towards that. why would we add to the problem by starting a new insurance company? the pharmaceutical question is very different. the problems have largely been mitigated by the availability of $4 generics at wal mart and now everywhere.. if we could legislate against convincing people that they need brand name drugs (with no greater efficacy) through direct to consumer drug advertising and let medical professionals decide what drugs are appropriate, we'd make real progress. even without that, there's no reason or need to start a liberal pharma movement.

[drnykterstein]

ACORN is/was/will be a corrupt organization accepting the premise of importing children for prostitution purposes while simultaneously promoting voter fraud.

Uhm... stop watching TV, it makes you stupid.

 

Fox News was way out of line in reporting this I suppose.

If even half of your previous sentence was true, I would agree with your sarcasm. Fox News lied to you straight up, and you drank if down like a child at a Jim Jones sermon.

[Rob's House]

private insurance is not considered a solution by many liberals. it has not controlled costs or provided for cost effective care and never will as long as there is fee for service. do more, make more doesn't work in health care. thus single payer with outcomes based reimbursement is the favored model of many progressives and we have taken the first step towards that. why would we add to the problem by starting a new insurance company? the pharmaceutical question is very different. the problems have largely been mitigated by the availability of $4 generics at wal mart and now everywhere.. if we could legislate against convincing people that they need brand name drugs (with no greater efficacy) through direct to consumer drug advertising and let medical professionals decide what drugs are appropriate, we'd make real progress. even without that, there's no reason or need to start a liberal pharma movement.

 

Dog, you are my favorite lib on here. You give an honest and consistent message and I appreciate that. I don't agree with you, as I see a single payer system as subjugation and don't agree that legislation is needed to help people see the value of generic drugs, but it's quite refreshing to see someone who can stay on point and give an honest opposing view rather than the hit and run off topic distractions I see from the sunshine troll and some others.

[Adam]

I wish you people would stop pushing the left/right paradigm. It is really fictional, although the brilliant people in this brilliant country brilliantly fall for it hook, line and sinker. This country really needs to grow up and realize that no system is a silver bullet that will make everything run perfectly and that any economic/political system will fail after a given amount of time, due to human nature.

 

ACORN is no less corrupt than BP or any other organization that is around for awhile.

[keepthefaith]

I wish you people would stop pushing the left/right paradigm. It is really fictional, although the brilliant people in this brilliant country brilliantly fall for it hook, line and sinker. This country really needs to grow up and realize that no system is a silver bullet that will make everything run perfectly and that any economic/political system will fail after a given amount of time, due to human nature.

 

ACORN is no less corrupt than BP or any other organization that is around for awhile.

 

I was with you until the ACORN moment. Not saying that BP doesn't have some question marks but ACORN would be tough to defend.

[Adam]

I was with you until the ACORN moment. Not saying that BP doesn't have some question marks but ACORN would be tough to defend.

BP knew the risks when they cut corners on safety with the well. They knew those risks were realized before the rig blew up and continued right along. I think you misunderstand me- I probably would have made those same decisions, as would most of the people on this board. There are very few who can avoid corruption.

[birdog1960]

Dog, you are my favorite lib on here. You give an honest and consistent message and I appreciate that. I don't agree with you, as I see a single payer system as subjugation and don't agree that legislation is needed to help people see the value of generic drugs, but it's quite refreshing to see someone who can stay on point and give an honest opposing view rather than the hit and run off topic distractions I see from the sunshine troll and some others.

thanks. i guess we can agree occasionally!

[OCinBuffalo]

private insurance is not considered a solution by many liberals. it has not controlled costs or provided for cost effective care and never will as long as there is fee for service.

This is true but not for the reasons you are implying. Health Insurance companies simply cannot control cost by refusing to pay more, or paying less, etc. That is merely messing about with the revenue of a health care provider.

 

No, the only way to really control cost overall is to control the cost of the providers. You are blaming health insurance companies for problems that aren't in their business models. They react to increasing provider cost, they don't create it.

do more, make more doesn't work in health care.

Bullschit. Do more, make more always works in every industry, and always will.

 

If we had more primary care physicians, health care cost would go down.

If we adjust standards/practices/laws to allow PAs and RNs to do more, by handling most of care process, health care cost would go down.

If we had systems that were about helping doctors and nurses do their business processes as priority #1, and less about being used to defend against d-bag lawyers looking for another handout, health care cost would go down.

If we removed the government dolts currently in charge of regulation, and replaced them with professional Quality Assurance firms from the private sector, provider costs would plummet, and quality of care would double at least.

 

I could fill 3 pages with these. So please, let's dispense with the BS. There is plenty of "doing more" that can be done, and plenty of "allowing more to be done" as well. There is plenty of making more that can be done. If there are more people who can provide care, then the cost of care drops. Unfortunately, exactly NONE of these issues are addressed by the health care abortion that was passed. And, NONE of these issues are ever even mentioned by "progressives", never mind whether they propose any serious solutions to them.

 

Your premise is BS, therefore, the rest of your argument, that is based on it, is BS as well. Fix your premises, or get new ones, and stop pretending that all roads lead to your conclusion, single payer, without solving any of the real problems, or even addressing them, along the way.

[Keukasmallies]

I like the "big cheese" "little guy" explanation: Quick, universal, understandable by all comers, and certainly captures the nuances of the corporate world. Yeah, I like it! Let's use it to describe government at all levels, too.