it's just money

Ricky,

Yes, but before the federal government wasn't forcing me to get insurance, was it?

At least now, if I think insurance is a ripoff or that the industry is corrupt, I can choose not to get insurance. If the insurance industry is the problem, how is forcing everybody to get it a solution?

GMTom wrote:Your linking only one example and not the other would certainly indicate you are calling one fear mongering and not the other.

No, you are inferring it. Reread the paragraph where I said I was agreeing with you:

danivon wrote:But I don't disagree with Tom here. Just as it's not good for Dems to be using demagoguery, it's pretty rich of the Republicans to whine about it when they were doing just that, on the same issue not two years ago.

Ok, so I didn't explicity say they were lying there, but I mentioned it earlier. To me, they are both as bad as each other

(and you return to your default position of 'they are both as bad as each other, but the Democrats are worse )

The current health care bill was incredibly minor change,
Nothing like what was promised! We have a supposed system that does little more than requiring people to have insurance, what kind of change is that?

I suspect that Steve will disagree that it was 'incredibly minor' given the budgetary side. I suspect that Vince would disagree given the issue of compulsion. I would certainly agree that it was not enough of a change, but you can't credibly say that it was none, or that it was very minor. If that was the case, why has there been such a call for repeal?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If it's insurance companies, eventually, we will realize some insurance companies are better than others, so we can move our business accordingly. If the government's in charge, there is no choice. It's "one size fits all."

How can you move once you've made a claim and the insurance company's panel has declined?

I don't know. Then again, Ryan says that won't happen. Since he wrote the budget, he may know more than you (I understand it has some form of must-carry provision, but it may be a high-risk pool).

Well, gosh, if he says so, then it must be ok. I mean, it's not like politicans ever lie, distort or merely oversell their ideas, eh?

So, admitting HE has been demagoguing represents "leadership" to you? Is that what you mean?

No. Perhaps you should try reading instead of making my argument up in your own head. I meant what I wrote.

On healthcare, Obama was weak. His original stance was for less than Single-Payer (it was H Clinton and Edwards who seemed to be more inclined that way than Obama, who was being the centrist in 08). He let Congress do it rather than put forward a comprehensive plan, and then wondered why the cats wouldn't herd themselves. And the result was a fudge and a mess.

Right, but he won't admit it. He could play the Statesman by announcing a grand compromise and negotiating with the GOP. He won't. I think if he did it we would get something far more workable.[/quote]Perhaps. But hows about your side show the way? You'd get more credibility, perhaps, rather than making it all about how awful the President is.

Obama is many things, but he is no leader. He has no courage. He is like any bully and won't know how to react when he gets a political punch in the face. That's why nominating another mealy-mouthed McCain clone would be a mistake. When Obama's not challenged, he's fine. When someone points to his flaws, he reacts like a typical Chicago pol and it's not pretty.

And so we return to what's really important to you. Is it healthcare? Is it the budget? No, it's getting a Win for your team, and doing as much damage to the opposition (and when personified by Obama, all the better, right?). Ah, the smell of principles burning...

There you go with the both are the same but one is worse again, both are wrong, both are not equally wrong. Murder is worse than manslaughter. Why must you insist both have to be equal, how much clearer can I paint it for you? Both are guilty of doing similar wrongs. But RIGHT NOW (you can argue the Republicans were more guilty several years ago) the Democrats are telling the bigger lies,

and the requirement to get insurance, that's some sort of answer? That was no fix, it addresses nothing but you are correct in it costing more, a tiny little thing like that, something that will do next to nothing to fix a huge problem will cost a lot of money, this tiny next to nothing "fix" is a big joke, one the Democrats are actually hailing as some sort of success that they are proud of?

theo

At least now, if I think insurance is a ripoff or that the industry is corrupt, I can choose not to get insurance. If the insurance industry is the problem, how is forcing everybody to get it a solution?

Here's the thing. If someone made a decision not to have insurance at the age of 24, then they decide to purchase insurance at the age of 44, they are taking advantage of the acturarial realities.
That is that from age 24 thru 44 or so we tend to have less use for medicine except for accidents.
As we age we use more health care.
Society seems to have made the moral decision that we don't want to simply leave people to die if they can't afford medical care. The only way that the freedom to not select paying or not for insurance is fair to all, is if the decision to not have insurance is made at a young age and is irrevocabale . (Or if there is a huge financial penalty due for not contributing to the plan for 20 years...) And that attendant to this, if someone becomes destitute later in life paying medical bills that we all agree that at that point we simply let them die rather than spend other peoples money on their care. Some of you sturdy libertarians may sympathize with this position.

We can't enjoy the moral imperative to provide care for all, and not at the same time allow some the freedom to eschew contributing towards the insurance pool that supports that imperative.
Now this is a philosophy that works well with socialized medicine . I suppose it still should with mandated private insurance. I understand that the administration of private insurance, and the sales costs and profit make private insurance somewhat less efficient than universal medicare ...but even so the philosophy is equal.

steve

How do you appeal a government panel's decision? I promise you there will be no effective appeal because it's all "for the common good." Some people will just have to die. That's the function of IPAB.

I don't suppose you'd allow the experience of socialized medicine in other countries to provide evidence of how this works?
Let's compare the numbers of procedures disallowed in france or canda versus the numbers of requests for procedures that private insurance turns down in the US now.
Anecdotally, there are procedures in my home province that are allowed in other provinces and which can be had in the US. There aren't many. They are generally fairly new, and considered still experimental or controversial. (unproven results)
One thing, 99% of claims to the insurance system that are on the "schedule" are paid immediatly on submission without further communication required from either the doctor or patient...
I do know that doctors in the US have a comparatively much hard time collecting on insurance claims for services. A huge number are denied the first time applications are made. And doctors allow as much as 20% of claims are never paid. Sometimes they forgo payment, sometimes they now chase the patient for payment....

danivon wrote:But hows about your side show the way? You'd get more credibility, perhaps, rather than making it all about how awful the President is.

"My" side has shown the way by putting an actual budget with actual Medicare reform in the budget. It's not perfect, but it's a start. "Your" side has simply demagogued and asked for a blank check (business as usual, unlimited spending).

Some day the note will come due. That day is getting nearer. President Obama and his crew are just pretending like a minor tax hike on the rich and closing a few loopholes will solve the crisis. They know better.

Obama is many things, but he is no leader. He has no courage. He is like any bully and won't know how to react when he gets a political punch in the face. That's why nominating another mealy-mouthed McCain clone would be a mistake. When Obama's not challenged, he's fine. When someone points to his flaws, he reacts like a typical Chicago pol and it's not pretty.

And so we return to what's really important to you. Is it healthcare? Is it the budget? No, it's getting a Win for your team, and doing as much damage to the opposition (and when personified by Obama, all the better, right?). Ah, the smell of principles burning...

Not at all. If he were about better governance, I would not be so opposed to HIM. However, all he's done is to politicize virtually everything--from the stimulus (doling out billions to his friends and supporters) to healthcare (demagoguing the opposition) to the economy (it's all Bush's fault and will be, no matter how many trillions he throws away). Obama's motto: "The buck stops . . . over there."

That's not leadership. It's pathetic.

steve
Your" side

I don't think Danivon has "a side" in this debate. He may have positions, he may have opinions about certain aspects, but i don't think he's reflexovely aligned with the Dems.
Just an opinion.

rickyp wrote:steve
Your" side

I don't think Danivon has "a side" in this debate. He may have positions, he may have opinions about certain aspects, but i don't think he's reflexovely aligned with the Dems.
Just an opinion.

In any debate over economics, he is far more sympathetic to the Democratic side. It's not even close.

Nice analysis of Medicare as a Ponzi Scheme:

McCarthy's arguments are principled and historical, not actuarial. One could elaborate at length on the statistical nature of the Medicare fraud. The most critical feature of any Ponzi scheme is that the early entrants must do well. Why did people crave the privilege of entrusting their money to Bernie Madoff? Because those who did so in the beginning got wonderful returns, through good times and bad.

Likewise with Medicare: those who are now enrolled in the program are consuming medical services at a rate that dwarfs the modest payments they made over their working lives. They are making out like bandits, just like Madoff's early investors. And, exactly like Madoff's early marks, the vast surplus they are reaping has nothing to do with any "investment" they made. Rather, it represents the government's deliberate perpetration of a fraud--in this case, a fraud that is intended to make Medicare politically sacrosanct so that it will survive, for now, despite the fiscal train wreck that we all know is coming. The liberals' plan is that when Medicare does crash, the market for medical services will be so distorted and so government-driven that it will be too late for any alternative except socialized medicine. We see that already in Obamacare.

Much of what McCarthy wrote is also in the above link.

it's just money

$. Palin wrote:it's just money

See, now I know you're not the real Sarah Palin, because she would never say that.

I was so confused, but now I know you're a fake.

she'd never spell $arah with a dollar sign either, I reckon

In her tour she's talked about enjoying the exhaust fumes from motor cycles ... maybe she's overdosing.

Neal, how many aliases do you have?