Kiss Your Freedoms Goodbye If Health Care Passes

Originally Posted By: Rim_RunnerQuote:Who's doing the same things on the same scale? Well UPS,Fedex, Burlington Northern , the insurance companies come to mind, they are all making profits which point to successful open market practices and not towards incompetent Gov't run businesses. UPS and FedEx handle packages how much of there business is non-package. Like letters, Post cards and things like that? How much passenger service does Burlington Northern provide? And most interesting, why do you hate the Government so bad?

Amtrak loses $32 dollars per passenger http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/10/29/s...ow-much-do-hig/ How long do you think a non tax supported business would operate that way? Amtak was supposed to be self supporting in 3.5 years, that was 3 decades ago.

How long ago was the USPS solvent? If it was legal for UPS or Fedex to handle letters, postcards, junkmail etc they would more than likely increase their bottom line. The USPS just keep raising the prices of stamps so fast you can't use up the ones you just bought before the next increase.

Oh yeah, I don't hate Gov't so bad, I just hate socialism and communism, and that is what O's Gov't is all about.
 
Last edited:
[/quote]
Does it bother you that someone might not agree with you? [/quote]


Not at all...........
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: STUMP49 Quote:
Does it bother you that someone might not agree with you?


Not at all...........
me neither.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Rim_RunnerQuote:Who's doing the same things on the same scale? Well UPS,Fedex, Burlington Northern , the insurance companies come to mind, they are all making profits which point to successful open market practices and not towards incompetent Gov't run businesses. UPS and FedEx handle packages how much of there business is non-package. Like letters, Post cards and things like that? How much passenger service does Burlington Northern provide? And most interesting, why do you hate the Government so bad?

FedEx and UPS are forbidden by law from competing with the USPS letter service. Were they allowed then I have no doubt they would trounce the feds on that as they have with parcels.

Pre Amtrak--a tax subsidized debacle--we DID have commercial rail service! I remember as a young kid taking a Northern Pacific train out of Seattle's King St Station to visit relatives in Lompoc, CA.

Rimmy, what you do not seem to gather here is that the government NEVER turns a profit. They just rely on subsidy, a la Amtrak and the USPO, so their participation in a market heavily skews it. Don't you get that?

It is neither the role nor the function of government to 'provide' health insurance. Taxing those who work and produce to transfer their wealth to the lazy and illegal is morally reprehensible to me. Charities should have that role, not the federal government. When taxed less Americans give overwhelmingly to charities, so let the people keep their money to give it away to organizations they approve of.

BTW, I support the Shriners Hospitals and St Jude's and these fine organizations provide very, very sick kids with top-notch care and NEVER refuse treatment for a kid who cannot pay, NEVER EVER.
 
The fact that anyone thinks the government option will not cost the American people more than anyone can guess really boggles my mind. How are the insurance companies going to compete against an option that doesn't have to make a profit? Simple answer is in the long run they cannot. Therefore, ALL of us will be on the government plan in short order.

How do we expect the government to run healthcare when they cannot run Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, or any other program without bankrupting it? I do think the healthcare system needs some reform, but not a total overhaul and government takeover.

Bear with me as I want to quote Walter Williams: "Again, the primary justification for increasing the size and scale of government at the expense of liberty is that government can achieve what it perceives as good. But the government has no resources of its own with which to do so. Congressmen and senators don't reach into thier own pockets to pay for a government program. They reach into yours and mine. Absent Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, the only way government can give one American a dollar in the name of this or that good thing is by taking it from some other American by force......The question we have to ask ourselves is whether there is a moral basis for forcibly taking the rightful property of one person and giving it to another to whom it does not belong.....Charity is noble and good when it involves readhing into your own pocket. But reaching int someone else's pocket is wrong."
 
There is an article in Forbes magazine about the two systems they have in Germany. They have a private system and a public system and you simply choose which you prefer. Forbes is a very conservative magazine, and they admit that this system works very well. The whole argument that a universal healthcare system is synonomous with socialism is ridiculous. The government has been in the business of redistrubiting our wealth for some time now. It is called taxes. Patients in this country spend roughly double what other civilized countries are paying for healthcare. The reason for this price gouging is because insurance companies simply pass on the cost of hospitals and doctors without any effort to control prices. A public option will reduce the cost of healthcare. However, the public option is dead in the Senate. The insurance lobby will make their stand in the Senate and they will be succesfull.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71There is an article in Forbes magazine about the two systems they have in Germany. They have a private system and a public system and you simply choose which you prefer. Forbes is a very conservative magazine, and they admit that this system works very well. The whole argument that a universal healthcare system is synonomous with socialism is ridiculous. The government has been in the business of redistrubiting our wealth for some time now. It is called taxes. Patients in this country spend roughly double what other civilized countries are paying for healthcare. The reason for this price gouging is because insurance companies simply pass on the cost of hospitals and doctors without any effort to control prices. A public option will reduce the cost of healthcare. However, the public option is dead in the Senate. The insurance lobby will make their stand in the Senate and they will be succesfull.

And that is a good deal, it will save thousands of jobs.
 
I actually agree with that statement MOFarmBoy. I can't understand why some form of tort reform wasn't included in the bill. It is a partisan bill that is slowly transforming into just another HUGE entitlement program.Unless the Senate performs miracles with this bill, it is going to be something only extremely liberal democrats will be happy with.
 
here is an article in Forbes magazine about the two systems they have in Germany. They have a private system and a public system and you simply choose which you prefer. Forbes is a very conservative magazine, and they admit that this system works very well. The whole argument that a universal healthcare system is synonomous with socialism is ridiculous. The government has been in the business of redistrubiting our wealth for some time now. It is called taxes. Patients in this country spend roughly double what other civilized countries are paying for healthcare. The reason for this price gouging is because insurance companies simply pass on the cost of hospitals and doctors without any effort to control prices. A public option will reduce the cost of healthcare. However, the public option is dead in the Senate. The insurance lobby will make their stand in the Senate and they will be succesfull.

I'm with farmboy Tort reform is the answer to stop all the bull crap law suits.

which i believe is a large part of the cost of our health care.



Orson
still living the dream on unemployment
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71I actually agree with that statement MOFarmBoy. I can't understand why some form of tort reform wasn't included in the bill. It is a partisan bill that is slowly transforming into just another HUGE entitlement program.Unless the Senate performs miracles with this bill, it is going to be something only extremely liberal democrats will be happy with.

The trial lawyers are the Democrat's biggest donor. That very powerful lobby said NO to tort reform. It's that simple.
 
Originally Posted By: idratherbehunting
A public option will reduce the cost of healthcare.






How? When you add more patients (demand) vying for an available product (supply) then prices invariably go UP. Now, when the government starts setting wages for doctors and nurses many will retire or move on to another profession, reducing supply EVEN MORE AND RAISING COSTS (prices) To cover those costs, TAXES WILL BE INCREASED and/or SERVICES RATIONED. When a huge, bloated, inefficient bureacracy oversees it the results will be much worse than if private insurers are involved. In spite of all the leftist rhetoric, they CANNOT repeal the laws of supply and demand. Once the government controls the healthcare system, the government controls YOU, which is the real reason the bill was written to begin with.
 
A public option is the only way to really alleviate the strain that is currently on the healthcare system. The public option doesn't have to be coordinated by the government to be effective. It could easily be administered by private insurance groups. The public option allows the government to mandate that people buy health insurance. The uninsured are crashing the system. Uninsured and illegals receive their medical care in our emergency rooms. The cost for this treatment is passed onto the private insurance companies by hospitals that have no alternative. American consumers are now paying twice as much for medical care as consumers in other developed countries. This capitalist model is not working very well. To be honest, to really 'fix' healthcare, tort reform and illegal immigration should be considered also.
 
HB71,
Quote:The public option doesn't have to be coordinated by the government to be effective. It could easily be administered by private insurance groups.
Unless I'm sadly mistaken (always possible), the U.S. Post Office fits your example of a "Private" entity running a Government Sponsored function... And while I generally applaud the actual mail carriers for their dedication, the overall management and budget control of the Post Office sucks...As does the Federal Reserve...

The frustration is so high and the stress levels so great that "Going Postal" is a common term in the lexicon of the American Language....I really don't want to see that applied to our medical personnel....
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71A public option is the only way to really alleviate the strain that is currently on the healthcare system. The public option doesn't have to be coordinated by the government to be effective. It could easily be administered by private insurance groups. The public option allows the government to mandate that people buy health insurance. The uninsured are crashing the system. Uninsured and illegals receive their medical care in our emergency rooms. The cost for this treatment is passed onto the private insurance companies by hospitals that have no alternative. American consumers are now paying twice as much for medical care as consumers in other developed countries. This capitalist model is not working very well. To be honest, to really 'fix' healthcare, tort reform and illegal immigration should be considered also.

We aren't using a free market model, look at your own post, you make two outstanding points at the end!

Big government's pals, the tort bar, has driven up through the roof malpractice rates--this increases doctors' overhead and that is passed on to consumers.

Government has mandated that illegals and others receive treatment for non-life threatening maladies free at regular hospitals.

Government created Medicare and Medicaid which pay below market rates to hospitals and physicians for services.

So, the liberal reaction? You guessed it: More government!

No, I say use the free market. Reform tort laws, allow more consumer freedom with insurance purchases, get employers out of the picture (employer provided medical insurance was a reaction to WWII wage freezes, WWII is now over so let's end that), etc. Going to government, the very entity which screwed this up, isn't the answer, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Old Turtle, the U.S. Post Office is a bad example because it is, in fact, a monopoly without competition.I was thinking more about privatization of medicare/medicaid into a private insurance group that administers the public option. Britain had some success in the eighties privatizing British Telecom and British Gas. I have no argument against the free market. However, hospital admittance and treatment options are heavily influenced by government regulations. Hospitals have to treat sick people regardless of their ability to pay.
 
Originally Posted By: HunterBear71Hospitals have to treat sick people regardless of their ability to pay.

Not to be a horse's rear, and all laws aside, why? Why should someone receive a service they cannot pay for? I'm all for altruism and charity, but not at the point of a gun. That care is being paid for by someone - me. Why do I not have a say in its distribution? If I want to help the downtrodden get healthcare, I will donate to a local hospital that provides the service. The gov't should not be the middleman. Despite liberals' view to the contrary, I can't see how this theft and redistribution is Constitutional on any level. But that's just me I guess. I'm a bitter... well, you know.
 
Back
Top