dayman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Why are all you anti-government folk not talking about the article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 yes. as stated in the piece, the gov't pays less for nearly everything in healthcare due to it's massive purchasing power. Yeah, that's why they pay less. Is there any amount of crap you liberals won't believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Why are all you anti-government folk not talking about the article? The real question is what part of ACA actually addresses the real reasons health care in this country costs so much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 (edited) Why are all you anti-government folk not talking about the article? Lol.....same old SameOld...................here's one, why do you feel the need to continuously misrepresent the views that are different than yours? because thats the only way you can come up with ? . . Edited March 2, 2013 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 2, 2013 Author Share Posted March 2, 2013 If you had debt of $250,000, no assets and no way to ever pay it back, yes, I'd say you are insolvent. Heinz has $12B in assets. What should we do, sell $16T of the country off? As for Medicare, what it appears to be and what it is are two entirely different things. Here is a good article showing how Medicare shifts it's costs to others. Yes, the point I was making is that you can't simply look at the level of debt and assume it's bad. The debt is a balance sheet item and we usually compare it to GDP, an income flow. The government has assets to sell, and it does sell quite often to resource companies. The government's debt is not much different than Heinz's debt: neither ever have to be paid off. Both can always reissue their debt as long as they show they can make their interest payments (though the government does have a last resort action if necessary).Thanks for the link. I'll check it after the Sabres game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 The real question is what part of ACA actually addresses the real reasons health care in this country costs so much? the part the conservatives killed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 the part the conservatives killed So, you agree that the ACA doesn't lower costs, ads to the bureaucracy in government and is just another way to redistribute wealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Why are all you anti-government folk not talking about the article? From what i understand as the point of view of a right wing canuck, this person has access to health care through medicaid but opted for the pricier service that isnt covered? Speaking from my personal experiences here, most people opt to use their canadian healthcare and will head south of the border for more advanced care. Why does anyone think this issue can ever be solved? The well to do will always have access to more than the middle class and poor. No program will solve that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 the part the conservatives killed You mean because conservatives profit so much from the health care and legal lobbies? http://online.wsj.co...7595120225.html http://www.nationalj...-money-20090727 http://www.reuters.c...E5AJ3HA20091120 "Lawmakers, especially Democratic Senators up for re-election next year, have seen a flood of campaign donations from hospitals, device makers and others with billions at stake." You're going to have to do better than that. Be specific on what parts that the "conservatives" supposedly killed that would have made health care in America more affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 And I'm sorry I forgot you can't see beyond your own eyelids, and make the Westboro Baptist Church look open-minded. Yeah, because the best solution to bad regulations that can't be enforced by any regulatory body regardless of funding is YET ANOTHER regulatory body issuing counter-productive regulations that can't be enforced. Which is pretty much the description of the CFPB - little hint, since you seem to be new to reality: just because something SOUNDS like a good idea, doesn't mean it works. IMPLEMENTATION of a nice-sounding idea actually matters. That's why arguing "regulations" with you is such a complete waste of time: you're constitutionally incapable of understanding that while "Regulate it!" sounds like a solution to everything, it doesn't actually solve anything if the regulations and enforcement are half-assed, ignorant, and downright insane - which, incidentally, is an excellent description of the Dodd-Frank bill that created the CFPB. Which, again, is something I've said repeatedly, but apparently I have to explain the same thing over and over because you're too obtuse to understand it. Which gets us back to: you're an idiot, shut the !@#$ up. So if the CFPB isn't the answer what is? You're great at pointing out problems, now find a solutions. So, you agree that the ACA doesn't lower costs, ads to the bureaucracy in government and is just another way to redistribute wealth? If it leads to Medicare being extended to everyone in the nation. It can be whatever it wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 If it leads to Medicare being extended to everyone in the nation. It can be whatever it wants. And there is the issue. I have lived in that situation my entire life and guess what? People are starting to opt for private. Personally i dont like the US system any more than the canadian but the constant examples i see is people opting for more expensive treatments that most insurers dont cover. Its not any better if you have single payer. Only the rich blokes will have access to the premium care and well, we're right back where we started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 And there is the issue. I have lived in that situation my entire life and guess what? People are starting to opt for private. Personally i dont like the US system any more than the canadian but the constant examples i see is people opting for more expensive treatments that most insurers dont cover. Its not any better if you have single payer. Only the rich blokes will have access to the premium care and well, we're right back where we started. No matter where you are the rich are always going to have access to better healthcare. That's just the way it is and extending Medicare to everyone in the US isn't going to change that here either. However, it gives everyone the right to basic care. And basic care is what I think should be a right. If you want better care, private rooms, elective procedures, or better doctors you can spend the money to supplement with private insurance. I'm not saying that we are all entitled to the best care. Just that we should be entitled to care in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 No matter where you are the rich are always going to have access to better healthcare. That's just the way it is and extending Medicare to everyone in the US isn't going to change that here either. However, it gives everyone the right to basic care. And basic care is what I think should be a right. If you want better care, private rooms, elective procedures, or better doctors you can spend the money to supplement with private insurance. I'm not saying that we are all entitled to the best care. Just that we should be entitled to care in the first place. And yet the article seems to use the issue of a poor couple chasing above average care as a reason health care should be administered by the government. And dont most people have access to basic care? Medicare + medicaid + insurance for middle class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 2, 2013 Share Posted March 2, 2013 Yes, the point I was making is that you can't simply look at the level of debt and assume it's bad. The debt is a balance sheet item and we usually compare it to GDP, an income flow. The government has assets to sell, and it does sell quite often to resource companies. The government's debt is not much different than Heinz's debt: neither ever have to be paid off. Both can always reissue their debt as long as they show they can make their interest payments (though the government does have a last resort action if necessary). Thanks for the link. I'll check it after the Sabres game. Did you just compare a company that was solidly investment grade moving into a junk bond world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 You mean because conservatives profit so much from the health care and legal lobbies? http://online.wsj.co...7595120225.html http://www.nationalj...-money-20090727 http://www.reuters.c...E5AJ3HA20091120 "Lawmakers, especially Democratic Senators up for re-election next year, have seen a flood of campaign donations from hospitals, device makers and others with billions at stake." You're going to have to do better than that. Be specific on what parts that the "conservatives" supposedly killed that would have made health care in America more affordable. medicare death pannels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 medicare death pannels Sorta like saying the Right to Lifers keep medical costs up by being against the killing of fetuses who could become sick later in life, and need medical care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 to me that article just confirms what ive said all along, that it was a huge mistake to remove the public option from health care reform. the one and only reason i would ever want the dems to regain total control would be to get that part back into the system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) to me that article just confirms what ive said all along, that it was a huge mistake to remove the public option from health care reform. the one and only reason i would ever want the dems to regain total control would be to get that part back into the system OK, so for the last 4 years the feds have spent nearly a third more than they've taken in. If that was your household, you'd either be bankrupt or in hiding. The dems, when and where they've had control, have refused to pass a budget. Do you actually think if they ever gained total control that there is one iota of chance that they would do anything to keep us from becoming Greece? I guess you don't get the fact that these programs actually have to be paid for---eventually, when the chickens come home to roost. Edited March 3, 2013 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) to me that article just confirms what ive said all along, that it was a huge mistake to remove the public option from health care reform. the one and only reason i would ever want the dems to regain total control would be to get that part back into the system Did you even read the article? If you did, then what you just proved to anyone who actually read and understood it is that you are a complete blithering idiot. The article had virtually nothing to do with excessive profits from the private health insurers but much more so with the inefficient delivery system of medicine here in the U.S. The reason why the public option was ever brought up was so it would provide more "competition" amongst the insurers, because there was a false predominant belief from many that rising health insurance premiums were being driven by greed from the health insurance industry, which of course is false. If you had read the article and took it for what it was worth, you would see that premiums are being driven by..... Drum roll please.......... Health care costs, What the author proposes are ways to limit overcharging from the providers not the insurers, Your post helped confirm what I pretty much thought, which is that you're an idiot Edited March 3, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 yes because widespread permanent price pressures would have no effects on providers :rolleyes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts