Comments on: But Medicare is so efficient

By: emdfl

emdfl — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:29:33 +0000

Name me ANY program that our government has ever instigated that didn’t become a black-hole disaster. The time required for it to becoame a screaming black-hole is usually dependent on how hard said program is pushed as being “for the children and in “our” interest.

Point of fact is that this has nothing to do with improving health care and everything to do with seizing another revenue stream to fund the NEW! IMPROVED! government.

By: Nate

Nate — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 11:46:03 +0000

Tgirsh,
I have no problem working together, I agree that something needs to be done. But it always seems that when collectivists talk about working together it means doing what they want and shutting up.
Also I don’t see how stating things that have happened in other countries with national healthcare is going down the crazy path, or regurgitating CATO talking points.
I would be more than willing to talk about actual fixes, not just another problem that we will have to pay to fix later. No matter what figures are stated, the gov ALWAYS underforcasts, they figure that they can just make it up with more taxes, fees, fines etc later. So I don’t trust gov numbers on how much this will cost, nor any other biased group. I look at places where a “single payer option” is used and see nothing I want to be a part of. But I also agree that we need to make healthcare more affordable. Even the collectivists agree that competition is the answer, but we disagree on the best way to do it.
I don’t know what the solution is, I just know what it is NOT.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:28:48 +0000

Tgirsch, if you are complaining about me not talking about the actual plan, then why bring up the costs of the wars? Was that part of his proposal? You cannot fret about going off topic then do it constantly yourself.

I know you are just trying to dodge the fact that Obama is doing now exactly what he was going after McCain for, but you cannot have it both ways.

Or that you conveniently ignored Iraq.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 21:31:16 +0000

Nate:

I was merely putting the lie to the “drop in the bucket” remark. From where I sit, whether or not I approve of spending the money depends on whether I think we get any value from having spent it. I suspect you have a similar view, and differ only in what you think returns value.

And, of course, despite all the purported legal navigation down “narrow, winding roads,” last I checked private insurers were doing just fine for themselves, making their profits primarily by finding ways reject claims and otherwise simply refusing to cover the people who need coverage the most.

After that, you cross over into the crazytown where working together to solve problems is somehow a bad thing, to which I say, whatever, dude. Liberal though I may be, I have a lot of problems with the Obama plan, and am open to suggestions as to how to fix things. Look me up when you’re ready to start discussing actual solutions to these problems, rather than just parroting CATO institute talking points.

Dan:

I don’t ever recall Obama promising to end operations in Afghanistan. Could be wrong, he may have said something about it at some point, but it certainly was never a major plank for him. Indeed, he suggested that our Afghanistan operations should expand into Pakistan, and was roundly criticized by the “serious” (i.e. neocon, wrong about almost everything) foreign policy minds for it.

Anyway, try talking about the actual plan being proposed, rather than your fantasy straw-man version thereof. There’s no lack of choice as a result of the proposed reform.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:14:16 +0000

Good point Nate. Hilarious how the same liberals that cry and whine about the costs with the Iraq/Afghan wars (where was that president that said he would end those engagements gone to?) have apparently no problem giving that same government more power and even more money to determine the health care options of people; whether they want it or not.

I wonder what date was it decided that cutting funding from medicare was not killing old people: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-to-cut-medicare-despite-promises

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:43:38 +0000

You are so right tgirsh. Just because we have spent soooo much money on Iraq and Afghanistan we should so give the government MORE power over our lives.
This isn’t a solution, it’s the start to a bigger problem. First you make the regulations on private health insurance companies narrow winding roads so it’s expensive to hire lawyers that have to navigate the roads. Then those costs are put off to the consumers *gasp* capitalism at work. Then the fed gov comes in and says “WE can do it better and it will cost you the same. PLUS you never have to wait for service again!”. Then the fed gov exempts itself from all the regulations that are still imposed on private healthcare compaines. Then those companies can’t keep costs down so they go out of business. But the fed gov will NEVER go out of business, you see it makes the rules AND money. Then, it’s all fine and dandy until demand(free healthcare) outstrips supply(money). Then there are four hour waits in ambulances until you get to SIT in the emergency room, people are denied services because they enjoy smoking or eating foods deemed unhealthy by the gov.
How about this. If me and everyone else who doesn’t share in this desire to be cradled by the gov get a guarantee that is enforceable by hanging anyone who breaks such a guarantee, that our taxes, fee, fines etc… will NEVER go up due to this abomination, lifestyle choices will NEVER be forced upon us due to this abomination and freedom will NEVER be abridged due to this abomination…I’ll still tell you collectivists to shove it.
No f’n way, stop trying to push your agenda on us.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:47:14 +0000

HardCorps: Nice try, but the direct costs alone of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are already over $900 billion, and could reach as much as $1,700,000,000,000 by the time we're done. And that's just the direct costs. When you factor in the indirect costs, you're looking at over $3,000,000,000,000. Uncle: Color me skeptical. Following the links through, it looks like a fine example of how to lie with statistics.

By: bwm

bwm — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:59:15 +0000

Wow, this might be one of the absolute dumbest things I’ve ever read. Simply amazing.

By: HardCorps

HardCorps — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:39:56 +0000

Socialized government heathcare will really be the end of the US. We could have two wars ongoing to perpetuity and it would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,500,000,000,000+ that is spent on welfare/healthcare by the fedgov. If they do socialize it, that will be the end of going to the doctor.