Progressives tout California Health care "success"

[OCinBuffalo]

socialized medicine certainly won't cure all the problems but it will help.

That's right, double down on your "bait and switch", rather than admitting that you've been selling single payer for years here as the be-all, end-all.

 

Yeah...we should implement socialized medicince, because it's "the more moral thing do", "the more intelligent thing". That's your sales pitch.

 

Except that in practice? It is neither. So then it's "but look at these numbers over here..."

 

SQUIRREL!

 

I've proposed solutions here and elsewhere that are superior to both what we had and the idiocy of socialized medicine, which is clearly worse. It is worse. If it wasn't worse, the solution to it, and such a valued solution, that is offerred as a benefit to the "high profile clients", wouldn't be "PHI".

 

"Single payer" was always about: MORE POWER for government people and their political pals. It's never been about solving problems. If it was, it would actually solve problems. Instead, it only, as you describe solves some things, sorta, for some constituencies: only the ones that vote for the people who tailor it for them.

 

You've been telling us that it solves all problems, because that's what the people who want power centralized in DC, so that they can sell that power to the highest bidder, have been telling you.

 

When are you going to wake up and realize that this is the real game here?

[Doc]

Not at this point. Unemployment's already high enough.

You only need to fix them by correcting for a few factors.

[birdog1960]

That's right, double down on your "bait and switch", rather than admitting that you've been selling single payer for years here as the be-all, end-all.

 

Yeah...we should implement socialized medicince, because it's "the more moral thing do", "the more intelligent thing". That's your sales pitch.

 

Except that in practice? It is neither. So then it's "but look at these numbers over here..."

 

SQUIRREL!

 

I've proposed solutions here and elsewhere that are superior to both what we had and the idiocy of socialized medicine, which is clearly worse. It is worse. If it wasn't worse, the solution to it, and such a valued solution, that is offerred as a benefit to the "high profile clients", wouldn't be "PHI".

 

"Single payer" was always about: MORE POWER for government people and their political pals. It's never been about solving problems. If it was, it would actually solve problems. Instead, it only, as you describe solves some things, sorta, for some constituencies: only the ones that vote for the people who tailor it for them.

 

You've been telling us that it solves all problems, because that's what the people who want power centralized in DC, so that they can sell that power to the highest bidder, have been telling you.

 

When are you going to wake up and realize that this is the real game here?

show me where i've ever said it will solve all problems. i've stated it was a work in progress at least a half dozen times. yall have a reading comprehension problem.

[B-Large]

Like you'd be able to tell, ya friggin' chimp.

 

thats what I thought

[OCinBuffalo]

nothiung phony about it. i've never heard a proponent of single payer say that those with excellent insurance currently will do better.

Well then you haven't heard many proponents of single payer.

 

It's utter crap to insist that single payer hasn't been sold as a panacea...to all problems.

 

Keep doing it, and I will keep, accurately, calling you phony.

it's about insuring the currenty uninsured. wanna improve life expectancy and infant mortality? rhetorical question, i suspect here i'd get some negative replies). easiest way is to improve care to folks that have littler or no care currently. attempting to improve care for thems that got isn't likely to change the numbers much. and guess what we've been doing up until the advent of the ACA?

See this is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. It also represent both sides of the "talking out of both sides of your mouth" that you engage in. Since when does insurance the vehicle have anything to do with better care? The real problem is care, not insurance.

 

What's the infant mortality rate of a baby whose mother is a crackhead, vs. one whose mother is a lawyer? How about the propensity for child obesity amongst a mother who makes dinner every night, vs one who lets McDonald's et al do that most of the time?

 

Think you'll find any pattern there, Mr. Analytics? Who is giving better CARE? Would "food insurance" solve that problem? Does making food stamps acceptable by McDonald's solve that problem?

 

What difference does it make for that child, if a charity is allowing the crackhead/lazy ass mother to be be crackhead/lazy ass, or the crackhead/lazy ass's family is supporting them, or the government is, by enabling the crackhead/lazy ass with welfare? Is more insurance going to fix this?

 

How is it moral to keep that kid at risk, so that you can say "look how wise we are, stealing money from the rich and giving to the clueless and the careless, the same way we give to the the helpless".

 

Robin Crackhead in the Hood. You can't tell the difference between the helpless and the clueless, and you don't even want to know. Why? Because "one size fits all" is the only way you can manage all of this from DC. That is why. Because this always been about managing things from DC, so that your masters can have more power.

 

No, they are all just the "30 million" uninsured to you. A faceless, nameless mass of useful idiots, by which you can derive: more power.

 

Edit:

Insurance isn't the answer. Making people accountable for their own health, and the health of their children is going to fix this. The free market, and not the government, will provide. Where there is demand, there will be supply...provided the government isn't crowding out that supply or F'ing with it and keeping it from appearing.

 

But, this can't be allowed to happen if you are a Democrat/wannabe government employee with big plans in the "taking business".

Edited August 1, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Large]

See, this is what qualifies as reasonable discussion on this.

 

However:

 

1. The notion that a free market wouldn't still operate within the context of single payer system is patently false. The Free Market ALWAYS FINDS A WAY! Look at the following want ads....

 

....actually? Don't. I was going to show you a plethora of London IT jobs that feature "private medical" or "private insurance" = PHI as a benefit, in the job description. I was looking throught them for work reasons, and it became uncanny/impossible not to notice. However, this is even funnier, and makes the Obamacare-->single payer clowns even more wrong : http://www.reed.co.u...g-SimplyHiredMS

 

Yes, it's a job whose primary function is: "be responsible for administering and rebooking Group Private Medical Insurance (PMI) policies for several of the firm's high profile clients". Yes, an FTE whose sole job is to create and run private insurance policies for English companies, in London of all places. Anyone think there are "access to care" or "not enough people to create proper risk groups" issues...in F'ing London?

 

Yes, the free market is operating, even in the places tools say it can't/shouldn't/doesn't need to. Ask yourselves: why would any company offer such a waste of money as PHI...if the government is doing it so well?

 

England, and Canada(I'm including them only because they never shut up about this), has single payer. I thought that made them "better" than us. Well, if that is so, then why is some lucky SOB going to get a job in London with 4 weeks vacation, their own Private Health Insurance(PHI), a bonus, AND SEASON TICKET LOANS(that is a kick ass idea that I might just have to steal immediately) whose only job is to deploy the alternative to the very thing Canadians/English buffoons won't shut up about?

 

I bet not a single non-progress progressive on this board has to balls to answer these questions, since they've now been confronted with undeniable reality, once again. No, just complain about this long post(becaue it is full of nothing but why you are wrong, and it's length is indicative of how much you are wrong).

 

2. The notion that "there was nothing wrong with Health insurance"?

 

Nonsense. I worked in health insurace (2, 10k employee firms) for 2 years, specifically in understanding every single business process and every single piece/set of data they had, organization-wide, all divisions, all groups, in detail. Thus, I know, not only that "something wrong" exists, I know what it is, I know why they do it, and I know why they are idiots for doing it. They could be doing something much smarter and of significant profit increase to justify a change/ensure an ongoing ROI on the change. I had convinced enough of their senior managers of what I was saying, that I was invited to present the full idea to their board. The trouble is? Old, morally compromised men, AND, women(they were every bit as sketchy), who've been running the same game for so long? They don't want to learn new tricks.

 

Well? Instead of doing the smart thing, never mind the right thing, they've driven their entire industry, and now the providers along with them, into the idiocy that is Obamacare. Instead of getting ahead of the problem, they've played into the idiots', who know nothing about health care or insurance, hands. They chose to keep doing what "they've always done".

 

Blatantly stupid. They had the info + my project's clear results right under their nose, and they chose to ignore it. Stupidity really is a choice. I refuse to deal with stupid. That is why I left that industry. It would take a serious amount of $, and absolute capitulation to our way of doing things, for me to return.

 

Of course there is a free market for care in any system, its called Cash Payment. Wealthly people with the Ability to Pay are not that worried about health reform, because they can pay cash for whatever they want. $250K in cancer treamtment and my insurance wil not pay for me to go to Johns Hopkins and see Dr. Awesome, ok, I will just pay the discount price... and provider jump at the business. Ever heard of wealthy people making pretty large donations to hospitals?? Yeah, its not just for goodwill, feel good reason... there is a person hired at each hospital to make sure that person ALWAYS walsk to the front of the line, even to see the Neurologist who specialized in headaches, who other scrocks have been waiting 6 months to see them- how do I know that? Because that person reports to me, and I am often making calls on big donors behalf.

 

So it doesn't matter if it pre-ACA, post ACA, priot to WW2, or National Healthcare in England or Canada, there is a system for everyone and then another level for people who desire/ heave the ability to pay for more.

[OCinBuffalo]

show me where i've ever said it will solve all problems. i've stated it was a work in progress at least a half dozen times. yall have a reading comprehension problem.

Oh...so it's been a WIP for 70 years in England...but darn it....they still haven't got all the bugs fixed yet?

 

I'd love to be on a project that lets us fix bugs over the course of 7 weeks, never mind 70 years.

 

Yeah...70 years of bugs is the reason why people are being hired in England to manage "PHI". It has nothing to do with Single Payer sucking balls.

 

Hmmm....where have I heard this before?

 

I know! "Communism doesn't suck...it's just that those peasant Russians didn't know how to run it right. It's the same thing with all those dopey brown and black people in the 3rd world. Too dumb to actually run Communism properly.

 

"Now, if only we'd run Communism in a first world country, then well, us white smart people? We'd really do it properly".

 

The excuses never change. The only difference is: at least you aren't being racist with your version of the same old excuses.

[B-Large]

Well then you haven't heard many proponents of single payer.

 

It's utter crap to insist that single payer hasn't been sold as a panacea...to all problems.

 

Keep doing it, and I will keep, accurately, calling you phony.

 

See this is the fundamental flaw in your thinking. It also represent both sides of the "talking out of both sides of your mouth" that you engage in. Since when does insurance the vehicle have anything to do with better care? The real problem is care, not insurance.

 

What's the infant mortality rate of a baby whose mother is a crackhead, vs. one whose mother is a lawyer? How about the propensity for child obesity amongst a mother who makes dinner every night, vs one who lets McDonald's et al do that most of the time?

 

Think you'll find any pattern there, Mr. Analytics? Who is giving better CARE? Would "food insurance" solve that problem? Does making food stamps acceptable by McDonald's solve that problem?

 

What difference does it make for that child, if a charity is allowing the crackhead/lazy ass mother to be be crackhead/lazy ass, or the crackhead/lazy ass's family is supporting them, or the government is, by enabling the crackhead/lazy ass with welfare? Is more insurance going to fix this?

 

How is it moral to keep that kid at risk, so that you can say "look how wise we are, stealing money from the rich and giving to the clueless and the careless, the same way we give to the the helpless".

 

Robin Crackhead in the Hood. You can't tell the difference between the helpless and the clueless, and you don't even want to know. Why? Because "one size fits all" is the only way you can manage all of this from DC. That is why. Because this always been about managing things from DC, so that your masters can have more power.

 

No, they are all just the "30 million" uninsured to you. A faceless, nameless mass of useful idiots, by which you can derive: more power.

 

Edit:

Insurance isn't the answer. Making people accountable for their own health, and the health of their children is going to fix this. The free market, and not the government, will provide. Where there is demand, there will be supply...provided the government isn't crowding out that supply or F'ing with it and keeping it from appearing.

 

But, this can't be allowed to happen if you are a Democrat/wannabe government employee with big plans in the "taking business".

 

You're marketing single payor as a Fix All, not anybody else. Nobody believes that Single Payor is a Healthcare Utopia, just like nobody believes the ACA is perfect, just like no one ever believed the Republicans would ever do anything about the Healthcare problem.... so, you get what we got.

[OCinBuffalo]

Of course there is a free market for care in any system, its called Cash Payment. Wealthly people with the Ability to Pay are not that worried about health reform, because they can pay cash for whatever they want. $250K in cancer treamtment and my insurance wil not pay for me to go to Johns Hopkins and see Dr. Awesome, ok, I will just pay the discount price... and provider jump at the business. Ever heard of wealthy people making pretty large donations to hospitals?? Yeah, its not just for goodwill, feel good reason... there is a person hired at each hospital to make sure that person ALWAYS walsk to the front of the line, even to see the Neurologist who specialized in headaches, who other scrocks have been waiting 6 months to see them- how do I know that? Because that person reports to me, and I am often making calls on big donors behalf.

 

So it doesn't matter if it pre-ACA, post ACA, priot to WW2, or National Healthcare in England or Canada, there is a system for everyone and then another level for people who desire/ heave the ability to pay for more.

Thanks....for the obvious. One of my internships in college was development for a continuing care community. Long story as to how I ended up there. So, yeah, I am quite familiar with all of this, in detail.

 

I fail to see how any of this is relevant.

 

The issue at hand is: single payer being sold by clown liberals and Canadians for years as the be-all, end-all....and me having to listen to this crap in no small amount at Sabres games.

 

Only to find that "we never said that". Or, "It's a work in progess....for 70 years". Or, "we never said it was going to make health care better for everybody".

 

Horseshit. They've been saying exactly that, for decades, to the annoyance of people, like me, who not only know better, but who just want to watch the F'ing game/take a piss in peace.

[Joe Miner]

You're marketing single payor as a Fix All, not anybody else. Nobody believes that Single Payor is a Healthcare Utopia, just like nobody believes the ACA is perfect, just like no one ever believed the Republicans would ever do anything about the Healthcare problem.... so, you get what we got.

 

Incompetence along with it's supporters?

[OCinBuffalo]

You're marketing single payor as a Fix All, not anybody else. Nobody believes that Single Payor is a Healthcare Utopia, just like nobody believes the ACA is perfect, just like no one ever believed the Republicans would ever do anything about the Healthcare problem.... so, you get what we got.

Again. Nonsense.

 

Now you are telling me my own life didn't happen? Wait...I am an IT guy...is this...the Matrix?

 

Pleeeeenty of people belive that Single Payer is healthcare utopia, and these are the same people who have been selling it as such. Do I really need to google this for you?

 

Buddy, at this point, it's far past time for you to consider that, even for reasonable Democrats, it's much closer to "nobody believes the ACA is rational" than "nobody believes the ACA is perfect". See here: http://www.washingto...g-on-obamacare/

 

I'm just saying: it might be time to consider updating your language on this subject, because you don't need to engage somebody like me to see which way the needle is pointing on this.

 

I agree that Republicans were dumb about this, but, nowhere near as dumb as the health insurance clients who flat out ignored the proposal I put in front of them, which was based directly on the results we were already getting on what would have been a congruent project. We could have taken away the top 3 Democrat "Insurance company = evil" talking points in a matter of 8 months there,

 

 

EDIT: profitably, and then why wouldn't the rest of the industry follow along? That's how they all operate. None of them have any reason to innovate...which is also part of the problem...because the dopes won't allow interstate competition.

 

Do you know why that is? Because the union insurance companies that are poorly run, would be blown out of the water. Talk about corporate welfare.

Edited August 1, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[B-Large]

Incompetence along with it's supporters?

 

says you. 17 compaines submiting plans set to be released in August, available for purchase October 1 in Colorado... yep, incompetence all right...

[OCinBuffalo]

says you. 17 compaines submiting plans set to be released in August, available for purchase October 1 in Colorado... yep, incompetence all right...

yes, subimitted plans....that's what will make this go.

 

It has nothing to do with the fact that the single white male in his 20s ain't going to sign up for these plans....because it's far cheaper to pay the fine, and of course, we all know how likely 20 year old white males are to pay attention to some d-bag government person, nonsense, agenda, etc.

 

EDIT: I know! Let's hire some cool Hollywood actor to tell them to sign up....because...yeah, when I was in my 20s, cool Hollywood actors weren't the people I would routinely mock as tools. I'm actually sitting here trying to think of somebody like Tom Hanks...telling me I should overpay for something I'm very unlikely to need...and if Youtube had been around at the time...and what I would have done to his dopey commercial.

 

Yeah...proper marketing concepts applied in the field! I don't remember by marketing practicum working this way. Not even kinda.

 

I'm sorry...were you saying something about competence?

 

As in: the IRS people, who are supposed to help enforce this nonsense, don't even want it for themselves?

 

Or, the call center employees, whose job it will be to answer Obamacare calls...not even qualifying for Obamacare...because their hours are being intentionally limited to ensure that they don't?

 

Darn it! I've digressed again. I apologize.

 

As you were saying: Competence. Please continue.

Edited August 1, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[Joe Miner]

says you. 17 compaines submiting plans set to be released in August, available for purchase October 1 in Colorado... yep, incompetence all right...

 

Pass it to find out what's in it.

 

Keep supporting that.

[birdog1960]

Thanks....for the obvious. One of my internships in college was development for a continuing care community. Long story as to how I ended up there. So, yeah, I am quite familiar with all of this, in detail.

 

I fail to see how any of this is relevant.

 

this is priceless. i'd have put you on ignore months ago if you weren't so entertaining.

 

IT"S NOT RELEVANT....YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP! nearly by definition, that makes it irrelevant. if it weren't for your combing the want ads we may never have entered this deep, important discussion on tiered care. and you accuse me of talking out both sides on my mouth? the fact that a small minority of people could, can and will always be able to get preferential treatment in healthcare or in anything else is not relevant to a debate on single payer. i'm, so very relieved that you agree.

[DC Tom]

It has nothing to do with the fact that the single white male in his 20s ain't going to sign up for these plans....because it's far cheaper to pay the fine, and of course, we all know how likely 20 year old white males are to pay attention to some d-bag government person, nonsense, agenda, etc.

 

But it all becomes clear how some people think this will work. Y'know...given birddog's wonderful point he made earlier that people will act out of a sense of generous nobility unmotivated by desire for financial gain. I'm sure there's enough 20-something males who think that way that'll sign up out of the kindness of their hearts.

[OCinBuffalo]

this is priceless. i'd have put you on ignore months ago if you weren't so entertaining.

 

IT"S NOT RELEVANT....YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP! nearly by definition, that makes it irrelevant. if it weren't for your combing the want ads we may never have entered this deep, important discussion on tiered care. and you accuse me of talking out both sides on my mouth? the fact that a small minority of people could, can and will always be able to get preferential treatment in healthcare or in anything else is not relevant to a debate on single payer. i'm, so very relieved that you agree.

WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I am not the one who has been holding up Single Payer as a panacea.

Of course private, wealthy, individuals can pay extra for health care.

 

WTF do those 2 things have to do with each other? Nothing. You've made a false equivalency, or relationship(I'm not really sure because I having a tough time cutting through your incoherence) and you're demanding that we recognize it.

 

F you. I've had my patience tested at Sabres and Bills games for years by clowns who have demanded that I recognize that Single Payer is the best health care system on the planet. Now, we have incontrovertible evidence that proves that is not even close to being the case.

 

Period.

 

Let's cut the crap: what you don't like here is the fact that PHI is making a huge comeback in Europe. Europe: the Mecca for all the "progressive" turds. But, now that they are doing something that directly contradicts your vain assertions, you're angry about it.

 

But here is the real kicker: That job description? That job is for somebody who is clearly part of:

 

THE MIDDLE CLASS

 

and that really sucks for you, doesn't it? You can talk about rich people being able to pay extra...and la ti da. But, now we are seeing middle class people being offered PHI in Europe, and that, my friend, is the end of your argument, isn't it? When the middle class is being offered health benefits at work? There goes the entire liberal rationale for why Single Payer is better for all.

 

I am already right. Now, the only variable here is time: how long will it take you to admit it?

Edited August 2, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

But it all becomes clear how some people thing this will work. Y'know...given birddog's wonderful point he made earlier that people will act out of a sense of generous nobility unmotivated by desire for financial gain. I'm sure there's enough 20-something males who think that way that'll sign up out of the kindness of their hearts.

It's hilarious. They know marketing priciples well enough to use Spyware-->Analytics to get themselves elected.

 

Yet, they completely forget them when it comes to governing? The reason the HHS secretary was out raising money? The internet ad campaign they are going to try and run. Too bad for them: the NSA story, coupled with the the IRS scandal, has got everbody's radar up.

 

Make no mistake, the web will take their money. But, right afterwards, will release meme after meme that makes fun of them. It's going to be entertaining really, the first truly all out internet war since the Napster mess?

 

The right has a lot of ground to make up in terms of logistical support, however, they have the moral high ground: ("why are they giving big business a pass, but making you pay right now, Mr. 20-something? Could it be because this plan depends on your money, on you overpaying for something you are unlikely to need, and fails if you refuse to sign up? You're being scammed, buddy. You're being treated like an idiot. How does that make you feel?), never mind the initiative. They shouldn't wait and respond, they should be out there right now beginning the attack, try to make the Dems use up their money defending, and never allow them to get their message out they way they want it.

[birdog1960]

See, this is what qualifies as reasonable discussion on this.

 

However:

 

1. The notion that a free market wouldn't still operate within the context of single payer system is patently false. The Free Market ALWAYS FINDS A WAY! Look at the following want ads....

 

....actually? Don't. I was going to show you a plethora of London IT jobs that feature "private medical" or "private insurance" = PHI as a benefit, in the job description. I was looking throught them for work reasons, and it became uncanny/impossible not to notice. However, this is even funnier, and makes the Obamacare-->single payer clowns even more wrong : http://www.reed.co.u...g-SimplyHiredMS

 

Yes, it's a job whose primary function is: "be responsible for administering and rebooking Group Private Medical Insurance (PMI) policies for several of the firm's high profile clients". Yes, an FTE whose sole job is to create and run private insurance policies for English companies, in London of all places. Anyone think there are "access to care" or "not enough people to create proper risk groups" issues...in F'ing London?

 

Yes, the free market is operating, even in the places tools say it can't/shouldn't/doesn't need to. Ask yourselves: why would any company offer such a waste of money as PHI...if the government is doing it so well?

 

seems your reading comprehension defect is not limited to my posts...unless i've suddenly developed dyslexia, this manifesto is about the belief that the presence of preferential care in the UK proves that their single payer system is a failure. now you say such an argument is irrelevant. and now you are correct: standard issue is a ford focus but some folks buy bentley's...so what? and maybe you should avoid political discussions with strangers at hockey games...just a thought. Edited August 2, 2013 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

But here is the real kicker: That job description? That job is for somebody who is clearly part of:

 

THE MIDDLE CLASS

 

and that really sucks for you, doesn't it? You can talk about rich people being able to pay extra...and la ti da. But, now we are seeing middle class people being offered PHI in Europe, and that, my friend, is the end of your argument, isn't it? When the middle class is being offered health benefits at work? There goes the entire liberal rationale for why Single Payer is better for all.

 

I am already right. Now, the only variable here is time: how long will it take you to admit it?

so the threshold now is that some middle class folks have access to private insurance. why? single payer still provides basic care for the vast majority that can't afford it....and that's kinda the point. needn't inspire defensiveness or anger in a single payer proponent. i suppose it's all dependent on ones goals for a health care system. if it's to provide the best overall care to the largest percentage of the population, single payer is clearly the choice. if it's "what's best for me", the choice becomes totally individual.

 

 

oh and btw, the concept of tiered care mitigates the big, bad bogeyman of incentive for the best and brightest to choose medicine, not that i think that was ever likely to be a problem anyway

Edited August 2, 2013 by birdog1960