Re: Obama Care
 

I hope cool heads prevail here and this thread doesn't deteriorate further quickly.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;567230]I hope cool heads prevail here and this thread doesn't deteriorate further quickly.[/quote]

That's true, this thread certainly turned away from Obama care didn't it?

Re: Obama Care
 

Lets debate topics not attack each other for having a different opinion.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567102]You are absolutely correct, I do not want to find a way to allow government to intrude and control the most important part of my life. I have in the past posted my thoughts on government, very clearly I believe. I am for a minimal government, one which secures our freedoms through a strong air force/navy and a standby army. Our Defense spending is as unwise as would be universal health care. We need the people of the US to remember that our history was made not by Government providing for our needs, but by individuals and local citizens working through hardship and toiling to bring the prosperity we enjoy. Government should serve to safeguard the basic principles we all hold dear, freedom of the individual, justice that is blind when it comes to race, creed, wealth. I am not a defeatist because I believe that Government has a limited role and a limited place in determining what is and is not appropriate health care spending. I am not defeatist when I look at the history of the Government and know that there are those who want nothing more than the purse strings to control who has access to the premium healthcare and who is shunted through the mass system (if you argue this point, go ask any congressman/woman what their healthcare package consists of). I simply do not want Government to be involved. I think it is a bad idea at its base. and as for being lazy, those who think the government should provide services instead of individuals being required to put in whatever it takes to provide for themselves and their families, that is lazy. I bust my tail, and i know most of us on here do everyday, and i try my best to provide the healthcare that my family needs. Lets all do that, and not look to big brother to handle it for us.

I don't expect that you would agree with these points, but at least recognize that to want a true limited government is neither lazy nor defeatist, in fact if government is limited that is when the opportunity to work hard, and lift this country out of its current debt is the most possible.[/quote]

I also want a limited/smaller government, as I have stated previously. I also have good health insurance. I also work hard. And, I don't have a position on government healthcare, as stated previously. Nevertheless, I can't see any value in always pointing out the costs/negatives without ever offering any positive ideas for making it work.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567184]Why don't you come up with some positive ideas?
I just don't see any positives in this idea.

How do you think it's possible for the government to take on such a huge financial burden? To raise taxes over and over again to pay for a program that will run way over budget.

What would need to be sacrificed?
Higher cost and taxes.

not possible and nothing.
I don't think anyone here who is against the plan thinks its not possible its just that we feel its a bad idea.[/quote]

I'm not the one shooting down every possibility anyone posts -- you are. I'm just the one pointing out that your contribution adds no value to progress. You are an obstacle.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567281][B]I also want a limited/smaller government, as I have stated previously[/B]. I also have good health insurance. I also work hard. And, I don't have a position on government healthcare, as stated previously. Nevertheless, I can't see any value in always pointing out the costs/negatives without ever offering any positive ideas for making it work.[/quote]

I really don't understand your position then, are you saying that we should reduce the size of the Federal Government and at the same time offer some form of Universal Healthcare provided by that same Government?

Re: Obama Care
 

John Stossel [URL="http://www.reason.com/news/show/134684.html"]nails it[/URL] once again...

[quote]By contrast, in areas of medicine where most patients pay their own way, service gets better, while prices fall.

Take plastic surgery and Lasik eye surgery: Because patients shop around and compare prices, doctors work hard to win their business. They often give customers their cell-phone numbers. Service keeps increasing, but prices don't. "In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis. "But the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."[/quote]

Re: Obama Care
 

not a good comparison. both lasek and plastic surgery are elective/ cosmetic. most of their cost is absorbed thru the patient. so of course people will be more frugal when using those procedures. now if that would work with heart surgery, and all the other operations a doctor could perform, then we would be talking

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567295]I really don't understand your position then, are you saying that we should reduce the size of the Federal Government and at the same time offer some form of Universal Healthcare provided by that same Government?[/quote]

As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.

Re: Obama Care
 

For my friends on the right...enjoy...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Psfn6iOfS8&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567379]As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.[/quote]
Well maybe its because you only question the ones against Un. Health care and no one else.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;567318]not a good comparison. both lasek and plastic surgery are elective/ cosmetic. most of their cost is absorbed thru the patient. so of course people will be more frugal when using those procedures. now if that would work with heart surgery, and all the other operations a doctor could perform, then we would be talking[/quote]

I think that was sort of his point.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567379]As I have said many times, but you have failed to notice, I have no position on Universal Healthcare. I am not arguing for, or against, Universal Healthcare -- yet you continue to read my posts as if I was. It seems you perceive anyone who's ideas don't conform to yours as the opposition.[/quote]

I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567426]Well maybe its because you only question the ones against Un. Health care and no one else.[/quote]

I just wanted to point out that your defeatist attitude is an obstacle to progress. It's just a coincidence that you are against Universal Healthcare.

Progress, in this case, does not mean Universal Healthcare. It means refining ideas until you get the best balance (whatever the topic). Every time you defeat an idea, and offer NO ALTERNATIVE, you stop the refinement process -- thereby stopping progress. So, people want to discuss possibilities, and you prohibit that. I understand you are worried about Universal Healthcare (for good reasons, no doubt), but you have to offer alternatives otherwise you reduce the value of the discussion.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567433]I suppose I am a pretty defensive kinda guy.

I guess my contributions on this thread are to state the reasons against Univ. Healthcare. I think it would be that big of a mistake for our country. But then what is your point of posting, have you offered any positives, or only try to quiet people who voice strong doubts towards a major government increase in our lives.

I really didn't "fail to notice" that you say you don't know have a position is, but if that is the truth then why do you not want to hear the arguments against, just as you want to hear from the proponents of it?[/quote]

I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem. Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved? (which would be totally legit)

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567458]I'm not trying to quiet the people voicing strong doubts -- only the defeatists. (see above post)

I have not offered any positives, nor have I defeated anyone's well-thought ideas. If all I had to say was why other people's ideas were wrong, then I would not post.

If you notice, I have not said your ideas were wrong -- only your tactics. I also never said I didn't want to hear the opposing arguments. However, there is a difference between "opposing" and "opposing argument".

Here's the breakdown:

1.) There is a problem with healthcare in America. Agree?

2.) Something needs to happen to solve this problem. Agree?

3.) People are trying to come up with ideas to solve the problem, and all you do is say why their ideas are wrong, but you never offer an alternative solution.

So, you are not really "arguing", you are just opposing -- and that is worth much less than actually trying to solve the problem.[B] Perhaps you don't see a problem that needs to be solved?[/B] (which would be totally legit)[/quote]
Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example
[quote=me] [our government has]

a) has a debt and deficits that are ungodly and will be for a long time
b) already has a program - social security - which is in dire need of repair
c) has a strong founding principle of individual responsibility over communal property

to suddenly take over a system that substantially works for the vast majority:
-51% is a majority,
-70 % would be a solid majority
-by [BleedBurgundy's] numbers 47million out of 300+million or 80% qualifies as a super majority
-90+ % using George Will's 20million, would qualify as a vast majority


Let's get our deficit down, debt down, Social Security stabilized, reduce our overseas military, and generally live within our means as a country. Once that is done, then let's talk about it. of course, if we did all those things, I am willing to bet that we would be able to find other ways to resolve this than looking to a federal bureaucracy.[/quote]

And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567455]I just wanted to point out that your defeatist attitude is an obstacle to progress. It's just a coincidence that you are against Universal Healthcare.

Progress, in this case, does not mean Universal Healthcare. It means refining ideas until you get the best balance (whatever the topic). Every time you defeat an idea, and offer NO ALTERNATIVE, you stop the refinement process -- thereby stopping progress. So, people want to discuss possibilities, and you prohibit that. I understand you are worried about Universal Healthcare (for good reasons, no doubt), but you have to offer alternatives otherwise you reduce the value of the discussion.[/quote]
Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567472]Yes, I don't see a problem that NEEDS to be solved. I have repeatedly said that in this thread. For example


And many other posts. I am opposed to UHC, I have stated many times over why I am opposed. It is not defeatist to actively oppose something. If I were to get defeatist, it would probably be more along the lines of:
UHC is a terrible idea, but it's going to happen, so I might as well go along.
That would be me having a defeatist attitude. But I still believe that there are enough people that can see past the shiny rhetoric, and actually look at what the real consequences of a UHC bill passing. And so I will continue arguing that we as a nation are better served by having a very small safety net, such as we have in medicare/social security; and a heavier reliance on local communities and self-dependence. If the Federal government is to have a role, it should be in the regulatory side, and preventing abuses due to fraud and criminal actions.[/quote]

Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567482]Well this thread was about Obama Care and not how to fix the current health care system and thats a pretty complex problem.[/quote]

So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.

Re: Obama Care
 

C'mon let's stick with the topic people. Now who wants my recipe for grilled tuna?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567489]So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.[/quote]

For every ten politically themed threads, about 9 are designed only to bash. This isn't anything new here.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567488]Very well. For the record, my initial defeatism remark was directed at Firstdown, but you jumped in to defend him so quickly...[/quote]
Yeah, I guess I did... gets back to my defensive nature...

Onward and Upward, Football shall soon return!

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Mattyk72;567493][B]C'mon let's stick with the topic people[/B]. Now who wants my recipe for grilled tuna?[/quote]


Here you go:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv1FwOCNoZ8&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Preview: Wendell Potter pt 2 | PBS[/ame]

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567489]So at least you can admit the true meaning of this thread: to bash Obama and the Democrats -- because you clearly aren't concerned with making things better. Job well done.[/quote]
Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567537]Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.[/quote]

Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567537]Sr. I pay over $700 a month for health ins and would love for things to get better but I know the one thing I don't want is for the goverment to take over health ins. I'm open to any other ideas on how to improve the system. Just because I do not agree with him does not mean I'm bashing him or the dems we just do not agree on this subject and the expanding of goverment. If you look back at my post I do not believe I have used any words attacking Obama personally only his plan and I thought that as an American I had the right to disagree. Oh, I do believe I called Obama dumb but that was in response to another post calling someone else dumb and I did so to be sarcastic.[/quote]

FD, did you finally get spell check?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567542]Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit ([B]not sure what their profit margins are[/B], but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).[/quote]

Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;567545]Comparatively speaking they are sh*t. Most of the money goes to doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceuticals. They're merely middlemen who try to protect what little crumbs they get from the big pie.[/quote]

I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567542]Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).[/quote]

First off one of the reasons that health ins is so expensive is that the goverment mandates that ins co provide certain coverages in all policies. The best one of these mandates is for Viagra. Thats right we pay for old men to get it up. They also force me to buy drug and alcohol addiction and treatment and this list goes on and on. Why not let me pick the package that fits my needs like in other ins.?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567547]I had a feeling, but they are in business to make money -- as much as they can. Always coming back to the flawed corporate model.[/quote]
What the heck wrong with making a profit? Are you working for free?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567543]FD, did you finally get spell check?[/quote]

I have spell check for writing letters and stuff I just don't know how to make it work on sites like this.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567542]Do you think your insurance payment will ever go down without regulation from the government? I guess you'd just have to hope and pray the insurance company decides they don't need as much profit (not sure what their profit margins are, but you get my point).

I had personal insurance for 2 years and my premiums went up at least 3 times. During that period I never saw a doctor, nor had any claims, and I was single and 25. Why do you think my premiums went up? My guess is so the insurance company could cover losses elsewhere. So, don't you see, you're already part of a social program.

[B]I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: corporate greed or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree)[/B].[/quote]

Here I go interjecting again.

A few points to ponder:

1) if the corporation is corrupt, who regulates them?
2) if the government is corrupt, who regulates them?
3) if a corporation is losing money how do they continue to operate?
4) if a government program is losing money, how does it continue to operate?
5) How many private corporations went out of business last year due to failed practices or poor structure?
6) How many government programs have ever been shut down due to failed practices or poor structure?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567542]I guess it comes down to choosing between two evils: [B]corporate greed [/B]or government corruption. I suppose I would prefer government corruption -- at least they're accountable (to a degree).[/quote]

I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567552]What the heck wrong with making a profit? Are you working for free?[/quote]

Nothing is wrong with making a profit, unless profits are more important than ethics. That is the flaw in the corporate model.

Do you see a problem killing people for profit? That is one way how making a profit can be wrong. What about Madoff? He just wanted to make a profit.

You know this already. Don't let my annoyance to you cloud your judgment. Read my words -- not my username.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567566]Nothing is wrong with making a profit, unless profits are more important than ethics. That is the flaw in the corporate model.

Do you see a problem killing people for profit? That is one way how making a profit can be wrong. What about Madoff? He just wanted to make a profit.

You know this already. Don't let my annoyance to you cloud your judgment. Read my words -- not my username.[/quote]

What Madoff did was illegal and he will spend the rest of his life in jail. What do you mean killing people to make a profit?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;567557]I love getting to the root of this "greed" issue...

When you're searching for a job, all other things being equal, do you go for the one that pays more over the one that pays less?

Are you being greedy if you choose the higher paying job?

If you're shopping for a product, and two products are on the shelf that both will do the job you want them to do, are you being greedy by selecting the less expensive brand?

If you start a business, and you do everything in your power to cut down on expenses to earn as much money as you possibly can, are you being greedy?[/quote]

You're smarter than that, but I'll spell it out for you, since you asked.

Corporate structure:
Shareholders -> Executive Officers -> Employees

Shareholders want return on investment, but are usually not involved in the everyday activities and/or decisions of the business. They usually only care about the bottom line.

If the executive officers of a corporation are faced with a moral dilemma, and chose the morally right thing to do but profits suffer, the shareholders will elect new officers. If the executive officers want to keep their jobs, they will almost always be forced to choose profits over ethics. See the Ford Pinto as a case study.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567568]What Madoff did was illegal and he will spend the rest of his life in jail. What do you mean killing people to make a profit?[/quote]

Exactly. He chose profits over ethics. Don't you see a problem with that? Profits don't justify his behavior. Hence, it can be wrong to make a profit if your motives are unethical.

Mercenaries are people who are paid to kill. Think of hit men. Their actions are not justified either by making profits. Just trying to explain that making profits is not always OK.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;567571]Exactly. He chose profits over ethics. Don't you see a problem with that? Profits don't justify his behavior. Hence, it can be wrong to make a profit if your motives are unethical.

Mercenaries are people who are paid to kill. Think of hit men. Their actions are not justified either by making profits. Just trying to explain that making profits is not always OK.[/quote]
Once again both of these are illegal and neither have any thing to do with corporate greed. Individual greed yes.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;567573]Once again both of these are illegal and neither have any thing to do with corporate greed. Individual greed yes.[/quote]

Sigh. Forget it.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;567556]Here I go interjecting again.

A few points to ponder:

1) if the corporation is corrupt, who regulates them?
2) if the government is corrupt, who regulates them?
3) if a corporation is losing money how do they continue to operate?
4) if a government program is losing money, how does it continue to operate?
5) How many private corporations went out of business last year due to failed practices or poor structure?
6) How many government programs have ever been shut down due to failed practices or poor structure?[/quote]

1) goverment
2) goverment
3) Most have to restructure and alter their business model.
4) In the negative or with higher taxes
5) Alot
6) I'll have to say none of the big federal programs have been shut down but I'm sure some of the smaller programs have been for these reasons.