Oklahoma Republicans: Insurance Company Profits--More Important than Low Prices

[Midtowner]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it has rejected Oklahoma's request to shield some health insurance companies from the requirement that they spend at least 80 percent of the money they collect in premiums on medical costs.


http://newsok.com/oklahoma-loses-bid-for-insurance-company-relief-under-health-care-law/article/3637578

Just a few short weeks after slashing coverage for newborns, John Doak is at at it again. Somehow he believes that rules applicable to 49 other states shouldn't be applied in Oklahoma. Apparently, insurance company profits are paramount compared to the costs the taxpayers have to keep up with to insure their families.

[sappstuf]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-loses-bid-for-insurance-company-relief-under-health-care-law/article/3637578

Just a few short weeks after slashing coverage for newborns, John Doak is at at it again. Somehow he believes that rules applicable to 49 other states shouldn't be applied in Oklahoma. Apparently, insurance company profits are paramount compared to the costs the taxpayers have to keep up with to insure their families.

You should check your facts.. Because insurance company profits are paramount in Nevada, Maine and New Hampshire, they have all received waivers from the Obama administration.

I'm sure you will now redirect your outrage towards 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue as is appropriate.

[cleller]

Barack Obama does not like Oklahoma people. (insert image of the genius Puffy Puff daddy)

[KABOOKIE]

I wish 80% of his pay check and the government's budget went back to the people as well. :rolleyes:

[SCOUT]

The 80% requirement is one of the most direct attempts at eliminating insurance companies and going to a single payer system. If these companies could have cut their costs by 30% or more and kept the profits, they would have. Simply saying, "make your business cost less" isn't a real effective solution.

[Midtowner]

The 80% requirement is one of the most direct attempts at eliminating insurance companies and going to a single payer system. If these companies could have cut their costs by 30% or more and kept the profits, they would have. Simply saying, "make your business cost less" isn't a real effective solution.

With the 20% cap, we're not going to see excessive CEO compensation or anything like that. It also requires them to pay for medical care rather than refusing coverage in order to rake in profits. The medical insurance industry is a real cesspool. Forcing them to provide people with the services those people think they're paying for is a pretty good thing for the insureds. Sucks for the shareholders, but I'll take saving lives and fortunes over the interests of a shareholders seven days a week and twice on Tuesday.

[Sooner5030]

With the 20% cap, we're not going to see excessive CEO compensation or anything like that. It also requires them to pay for medical care rather than refusing coverage in order to rake in profits. The medical insurance industry is a real cesspool. Forcing them to provide people with the services those people think they're paying for is a pretty good thing for the insureds. Sucks for the shareholders, but I'll take saving lives and fortunes over the interests of a shareholders seven days a week and twice on Tuesday.


You're not taking into consideration the unintended consequances of the 80% rule. The 80% rule was probably accepted by the insurance lobby because it will deter new business and competition. Premium revenue for new premiums drive your selling and administrative cost to 4 times what is compared to renewals. Agents require a much higher cut for new premiums. Back in a prior life, when I audited the F/Ss for insurance companies, they were paying anywhere from 15-40% to agents for new premiums and 3-8% for renewals.

This means that the suppliers of health ins will only decrease while demand will increase. Great job detering competition in the name of regulation.

[Midtowner]

You're not taking into consideration the unintended consequances of the 80% rule. The 80% rule was probably accepted by the insurance lobby because it will deter new business and competition. Premium revenue for new premiums drive your selling and administrative cost to 4 times what is compared to renewals. Agents require a much higher cut for new premiums. Back in a prior life, when I audited the F/Ss for insurance companies, they were paying anywhere from 15-40% to agents for new premiums and 3-8% for renewals.

This means that the suppliers of health ins will only decrease while demand will increase. Great job detering competition in the name of regulation.

Having more competition sure as hell hasn't worked in the past. Time for something new.

[Sooner5030]

Having more competition sure as hell hasn't worked in the past. Time for something new.

what kind of analysis or evaluation did you perform to come to this conclusion? Is the change in competition the only variable over time. Have you thought about new ailments that are discovered and new Ritalin, Viagra, Prozac, and make me feel better pills are available to treat these ailments. We have sickcare not healthcare......and you're very naive to believe that the 'evil' insurance companies are the proximate cause. Others are culpable...including the idiots that think you can legislate or mandate “good” health care and health insurance.

[East Coast Bias]

what kind of analysis or evaluation did you perform to come to this conclusion? Is the change in competition the only variable over time. Have you thought about new ailments that are discovered and new Ritalin, Viagra, Prozac, and make me feel better pills are available to treat these ailments. We have sickcare not healthcare......and you're very naive to believe that the 'evil' insurance companies are the proximate cause. Others are culpable...including the idiots that think you can legislate or mandate “good” health care and health insurance.

What is naive is to think that the insurance companies, drug companies and the medical complex have not conspired to drive profits through raising prices and reducing service.It is sad that legislation is proposed that has as its purpose forcing insurance companies to pay for services?The insurance companies may not be the proximate cause but they haven't done anything positive in this. Unregulated private industry and the for profit model has been a massive fail in delivering fair pricing and improved services in the medical field. In the face of that, as usual the right continues to promote and vote for an agenda that is against their own self-interest.

[Midtowner]

what kind of analysis or evaluation did you perform to come to this conclusion? Is the change in competition the only variable over time. Have you thought about new ailments that are discovered and new Ritalin, Viagra, Prozac, and make me feel better pills are available to treat these ailments. We have sickcare not healthcare......and you're very naive to believe that the 'evil' insurance companies are the proximate cause. Others are culpable...including the idiots that think you can legislate or mandate “good” health care and health insurance.

Our healthcare model costs double what it costs everywhere else in the world and delivers a substantially similar (definitely not doubly better) product. What's the difference? Private medical insurance. The for-profit model, at least prior to the Affordable Care Act has been a failure.

[Dale Ellis]

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-loses-bid-for-insurance-company-relief-under-health-care-law/article/3637578

Just a few short weeks after slashing coverage for newborns, John Doak is at at it again. Somehow he believes that rules applicable to 49 other states shouldn't be applied in Oklahoma. Apparently, insurance company profits are paramount compared to the costs the taxpayers have to keep up with to insure their families.

Again, can you please show me where the constitution gives the federal government the authority to tell a business how it should and should not reinvest their earnings. I'll wait.......................

[Dale Ellis]

For all of you that don't like the evil, big insurance providers...................don't use them. What next? We must force BMW to lower the costs of all their automobiles so that everyone can afford one?

[Midtowner]

Again, can you please show me where the constitution gives the federal government the authority to tell a business how it should and should not reinvest their earnings. I'll wait.......................

The feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution places no limits on the extent of that power.

Anything else you need clarification for?

[Midtowner]

For all of you that don't like the evil, big insurance providers...................don't use them. What next? We must force BMW to lower the costs of all their automobiles so that everyone can afford one?

That's a total non sequitur. I don't need a BMW to be able to afford life saving treatment and to remain financially sound if something goes wrong with my health.

[Sooner5030]

Our healthcare model costs double what it costs everywhere else in the world and delivers a substantially similar (definitely not doubly better) product. What's the difference? Private medical insurance. The for-profit model, at least prior to the Affordable Care Act has been a failure.

Please show me your analysis on this claim.

Double in total, per claims expense, treatment vs like treatment, medical vs pharmacy claim or in total? What is exactly doubled?

[Sooner5030]

What is naive is to think that the insurance companies, drug companies and the medical complex have not conspired to drive profits through raising prices and reducing service.It is sad that legislation is proposed that has as its purpose forcing insurance companies to pay for services?The insurance companies may not be the proximate cause but they haven't done anything positive in this. Unregulated private industry and the for profit model has been a massive fail in delivering fair pricing and improved services in the medical field. In the face of that, as usual the right continues to promote and vote for an agenda that is against their own self-interest.

Dude.....do you really think the insurance industry in unregulated?

Man....based on your beliefs we should all just start health insurance companies and be mega rich. great f-ing plan.

[Midtowner]

Every single comparative study out there agrees that US healthcare is more expensive than anyplace else in the world by a wide margin. Outcomes aren't any better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/17health.html

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2011-06-30-health-costs-wide-differences-locally_n.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

[Sooner5030]

Every single comparative study out there agrees that US healthcare is more expensive than anyplace else in the world by a wide margin. Outcomes aren't any better.

You cleary stated "double" everywhere else. I just dont see those numbers. Also by your logic you want insurance companies to pay for more services right? that means those statistical amounts will only increase. So you want "health" spending to actually increase per capita? Is that what you are saying?

[Caboose]

That's a total non sequitur. I don't need a BMW to be able to afford life saving treatment and to remain financially sound if something goes wrong with my health.

You are not entitled to those things any more than you are entitled to a BMW.

[Caboose]

Every single comparative study out there agrees that US healthcare is more expensive than anyplace else in the world by a wide margin. Outcomes aren't any better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/business/17health.html

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2011-06-30-health-costs-wide-differences-locally_n.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/mar/22/us-healthcare-bill-rest-of-world-obama

More expensive, yes.... outcomes not any better? Are you sure? Have you factored in genetic and cultural differences? And if the outcomes arent any better, so what? Where did you get the idea that it is the role of the government to meddle in it?

[Midtowner]

You cleary stated "double" everywhere else. I just dont see those numbers. Also by your logic you want insurance companies to pay for more services right? that means those statistical amounts will only increase. So you want "health" spending to actually increase per capita? Is that what you are saying?

I don't want insurance companies to exist at all.

[Midtowner]

More expensive, yes.... outcomes not any better? Are you sure? Have you factored in genetic and cultural differences? And if the outcomes arent any better, so what? Where did you get the idea that it is the role of the government to meddle in it?

One of the government's roles is to protect us from corporate actors harming the rest of us.

[Caboose]

One of the government's roles is to protect us from corporate actors harming the rest of us.

LOL by forcing us to engage in commerce with said corporate actors? Are you serious?


Prior to ObamaCare were you forced to purchase health insurance? If no, then how were corporate actors harming you? Any transaction you made with them you made willingly and at a price mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller.

[Sooner5030]

I don't want insurance companies to exist at all.

Ok, but take away insurance companies and put in a government system like the VA. I'm not that against it. But it wont change our demographics, obesity rates, pharma lobby (**** they just cut out the middle man now), medical industry lobby.

Other than fewer services per capita.....I just don't see how a US government ran health care system will be cheaper. Who will take the hit? Doctors, Pharma, medical device production companies?

Or are you really so naive to believe that if we "fix" selling and administrative costs our problem will be solved?

[Midtowner]

LOL by forcing us to engage in commerce with said corporate actors? Are you serious?


Prior to ObamaCare were you forced to purchase health insurance? If no, then how were corporate actors harming you? Any transaction you made with them you made willingly and at a price mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller.

Ah, I willingly agreed to have my insurance premiums increase by triple digits over the last few years? Sure....

I didn't say the ACA was the best option, but it's sure as hell better than what we had before. With the expansion of the risk pool by adding so many more purchasers and the forced price and service competition which will occur with the implementation of the exchanges, things will be better.

[Caboose]

Ah, I willingly agreed to have my insurance premiums increase by triple digits over the last few years? Sure....

I didn't say the ACA was the best option, but it's sure as hell better than what we had before. With the expansion of the risk pool by adding so many more purchasers and the forced price and service competition which will occur with the implementation of the exchanges, things will be better.

So you were forced by who to continue paying insurance premiums as they increased?

Lets just cut to the chase. Your reasoning is bull**** because you can not realistically show that you were being harmed by corporate actors when you were willingly purchasing their products for a mutually agreed upon price. If you thought it was too much, dont buy it. You arent entitled to their product, so you cant claim it is something you "had" to buy for some reason.

And you still havent addressed the 1st person who responded to this thread. Why were you so quick to spew your derp when you thought you could direct it at "Oklahoma Republicans" yet remain silent about the Obama Administration participating in the same behavior? Point your feigned outrage to the appropriate place or shut up.

[East Coast Bias]

Dude.....do you really think the insurance industry in unregulated?

Man....based on your beliefs we should all just start health insurance companies and be mega rich. great f-ing plan.

Sure you don't have any ties to the insurance field? Look, I don't feel sorry for the insurance companies. I am not looking to get into the insurance business, my position would be more in line with eliminating them. Sure they are regulated, but they are in bed with all the commissions and politicians. They are ***-deep in all our health industry problems. If you want my plan, it would be a more liberal version of the Obama plan. I would start with putting some regulation into the health care industry, starting with drug companies. Let's eliminate drug advertising and put that 60 billion a year into reducing costs for the consumer.Give me any kind of reason why that's not a good idea?

[East Coast Bias]

Ok, but take away insurance companies and put in a government system like the VA. I'm not that against it. But it wont change our demographics, obesity rates, pharma lobby (**** they just cut out the middle man now), medical industry lobby.

Other than fewer services per capita.....I just don't see how a US government ran health care system will be cheaper. Who will take the hit? Doctors, Pharma, medical device production companies?

Or are you really so naive to believe that if we "fix" selling and administrative costs our problem will be solved?

Mid-Town is on the right track here, you have to increase the pool to reduce costs. That is the appeal to single-payer. Right now, millions are not contributing their share of the costs, but are getting the service when they show up at the emergency rooms. The contributors are subsidizing health care for those individuals, thereby increasing their costs. Spreading the cost and risk across all boundaries effectively reduces the cost for everyone. You would have a hard time making a case against the math involved here. At least with government involvement we have some say on oversight and administration of the programs. What kind of oversight do we have over the current system? Free market oversight? How's that working? Worse than the VA system?

[Sooner5030]

i like charles hugh smith:


According to local media reports, Western Pennsylvania has about 140 MRI machines, while the 32 million residents of Canada share 151 MRI machines.

That number can't be right. But he has more (and accurate) analysis in his blog than what I can find from any paid journalist.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/sickcare-will-bankrupt-US3-11.html

[Midtowner]

So you were forced by who to continue paying insurance premiums as they increased?

Lets just cut to the chase. Your reasoning is bull**** because you can not realistically show that you were being harmed by corporate actors when you were willingly purchasing their products for a mutually agreed upon price. If you thought it was too much, dont buy it. You arent entitled to their product, so you cant claim it is something you "had" to buy for some reason.

And you still havent addressed the 1st person who responded to this thread. Why were you so quick to spew your derp when you thought you could direct it at "Oklahoma Republicans" yet remain silent about the Obama Administration participating in the same behavior? Point your feigned outrage to the appropriate place or shut up.

My purchasing insurance is more an action of duress. I can do the responsible thing and pay for insurance or I can risk financial ruin or death if I get sick or hurt.

As far as why 4 states were granted the exception, why have 46 states not been granted that exception or asked for it? I understand that there were guidelines which had to do with costs and profitability. It's quite possible Maine, Nevada, etc., could meet those guidelines and not Oklahoma.

[Caboose]

Mid-Town is on the right track here, you have to increase the pool to reduce costs. That is the appeal to single-payer. Right now, millions are not contributing their share of the costs, but are getting the service when they show up at the emergency rooms. The contributors are subsidizing health care for those individuals, thereby increasing their costs. Spreading the cost and risk across all boundaries effectively reduces the cost for everyone. You would have a hard time making a case against the math involved here. At least with government involvement we have some say on oversight and administration of the programs. What kind of oversight do we have over the current system? Free market oversight? How's that working? Worse than the VA system?

The main flaw in your entire mindset (not just on this topic, but on everything) is the idea that we "have to" do something.... which inevitably means "government takeover".

[East Coast Bias]

i like charles hugh smith:



That number can't be right. But he has more (and accurate) analysis in his blog than what I can find from any paid journalist.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmar11/sickcare-will-bankrupt-US3-11.html

If you are going to argue that our system provides the best service in the world for all citizens you will fail. We have had that argument on here multiple times with the same result.Save us all some time and air-space and go do some more research......

[Midtowner]

The main flaw in your entire mindset (not just on this topic, but on everything) is the idea that we "have to" do something.... which inevitably means "government takeover".

The government is superior in a couple of ways here--they can take advantage of far greater economies of scale and the government's job is to deliver services, not make a profit.

[Caboose]

My purchasing insurance is more an action of duress. I can do the responsible thing and pay for insurance or I can risk financial ruin or death if I get sick or hurt.

In other words: "No one forced me to buy something I didnt want to buy, ergo no one was causing me harm"

I dont know why this is hard for you to comprehend... you are not ENTITLED to have no risk of financial ruin or death. No one else is required to eliminate that risk for you. You wanted that risk mitigated so you opted to purchase a product from a company for a mutually agreed upon price. How do I know it was mutually agreed upon? Because you just said you bought it. If you hadn't agreed on the price you wouldn't have bought it. If they didn't agree on the price they wouldn't have sold it. It is utterly comical to suggest that you are being harmed by a company you purchased a product from when you werent forced to purchase it to begin with. Then on top of that, your resolution for that pretend problem is to support legislation that DOES actually force you to buy the same product you just got through trying to pretend you were outraged about being forced to buy previously.

Try to spin it all you want, the result is the same. Sorry that reality doesn't jive with your goofy ideology.



As far as why 4 states were granted the exception, why have 46 states not been granted that exception or asked for it? I understand that there were guidelines which had to do with costs and profitability. It's quite possible Maine, Nevada, etc., could meet those guidelines and not Oklahoma.

So, you dont know? Yet you immediately used it as a reason to feign outrage at Oklahoma Republicans without knowing the full story?

[East Coast Bias]

The main flaw in your entire mindset (not just on this topic, but on everything) is the idea that we "have to" do something.... which inevitably means "government takeover".

We definetely don't have to do anything. Among the skeletons in your closet is the boogie man............

[Caboose]

The government is superior in a couple of ways here--they can take advantage of far greater economies of scale and the government's job is to deliver services, not make a profit.

False.

Actually your whole sentence is false. There are the same amount of potentially insured in America whether the government takes over healthcare or not. The government's "job" is not to deliver any imaginable service just because a bunch of Jarod's decided that would be better for everyone else.

[Midtowner]

In other words: "No one forced me to buy something I didnt want to buy, ergo no one was causing me harm"

I dont know why this is hard for you to comprehend... you are not ENTITLED to have no risk of financial ruin or death.

The rest of the civilized world IS entitled to healthcare. I think I should be too, and it's very likely that if I was entitled to healthcare, not only would I get it (along with everyone else), but I'd pay a lot less for it.


So, you dont know? Yet you immediately used it as a reason to feign outrage at Oklahoma Republicans without knowing the full story?

The Oklahoma Republican Party has been a bought and paid for servant of the insurance industry for years. Cutting healthcare coverage for newborns a couple weeks ago, and now this.

[Sooner5030]

As long as we look to "fix" our health care cost by pointing the finger at Insurance and ignoring health and demographic issues we will always have a problem.

We also have a market that is nowhere near competitive. Either go free market or go VA. This quasi shiate just allows folks to game the system. Insurance is only one entity that is gaming the system.

[Midtowner]

As long as we look to "fix" our health care cost by pointing the finger at Insurance and ignoring health and demographic issues we will always have a problem.

We also have a market that is nowhere near competitive. Either go free market or go VA. This quasi shiate just allows folks to game the system. Insurance is only one entity that is gaming the system.

Agreed, but what we have being implemented through the ACA is better than not having it. And perhaps it pushes us closer to a single-payer system.

[Sooner5030]

The rest of the civilized world IS entitled to healthcare. I think I should be too, and it's very likely that if I was entitled to healthcare, not only would I get it (along with everyone else), but I'd pay a lot less for it.



The Oklahoma Republican Party has been a bought and paid for servant of the insurance industry for years. Cutting healthcare coverage for newborns a couple weeks ago, and now this.

You're entitled to a certain level of healthcare in the US also.....just not health insurance. You can receive indigent care if you cannot afford insurance. What part of the US do you live in? I will find you a place where you can receive indigent care.

[Midtowner]

You're entitled to a certain level of healthcare in the US also.....just not health insurance. You can receive indigent care if you cannot afford insurance. What part of the US do you live in? I will find you a place where you can receive indigent care.

I'm not an indigent. I earn a decent living. Decent enough to be able to afford insurance, yet not enough to be able to pay for my care if I needed treatment for cancer.

[Dale Ellis]

The feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Constitution places no limits on the extent of that power.

Anything else you need clarification for?

again, show me where with in the frame work of the constitution, the federal government has the authority to tell a privately owned business where and how they must invest their profits. You can't, because it's not in the constitution. Regulating interstate commerce and telling a business owner how he must invest his profits are two completely different things and you damn will know it.
As usual you're being intellectually dishonest.

[Midtowner]

again, show me where with in the frame work of the constitution, the federal government has the authority to tell a privately owned business where and how they must invest their profits. You can't, because it's not in the constitution. Regulating interstate commerce and telling a business owner who he must invest his profits are two completely different things and you damn will know it.
As usual you're being intellectually dishonest.

I'm just repeating the reasoning the D.C. Circuit's most conservative judge used when he agreed that the Act is constitutional. I guess you know better though.

[Sooner5030]

I'm not an indigent. I earn a decent living. Decent enough to be able to afford insurance, yet not enough to be able to pay for my care if I needed treatment for cancer.

which is why in this "free" country you can get with a bunch of folks like yourself and pool your risks as not all will get cancer. Get a big group together and pay a small amount into a interest bearing fund and when something catastrophic happens you can pay for it. Of course you will need to hire an actuary to determine the amounts to pay in, a large legal team to write up contracts and ensure regulatory compliance. And based on regulations you probably wont have the ability to limit to just catastrophic events. Your state may require your group to pay for routine care and Ritilan for little johny, prozac for mommy, birth control for a slut daughter and viagra to keep a marriage together. You may also have to cover counseling for your problems.

Ah hell, nevermind.....after covering all of that it will no longer be a "small" payment to cover the groups catastrophic events.

[Midtowner]

which is why in this "free" country you can get with a bunch of folks like yourself and pool your risks as not all will get cancer. Get a big group together and pay a small amount into a interest bearing fund and when something catastrophic happens you can pay for it. Of course you will need to hire an actuary to determine the amounts to pay in, a large legal team to write up contracts and ensure regulatory compliance. And based on regulations you probably wont have the ability to limit to just catastrophic events. Your state may require your group to pay for routine care and Ritilan for little johny, prozac for mommy, birth control for a slut daughter and viagra to keep a marriage together. You may also have to cover counseling for your problems.

Ah hell, nevermind.....after covering all of that it will no longer be a "small" payment to cover the groups catastrophic events.

OR we could have everyone covered when they inevitably get sick. Nearly everyone is going to have healthcare costs at some point in their life which they won't be able to afford on their own. It's inevitable. Put everyone in the same risk pool, lower costs overall and enjoy economies of scale which would otherwise be impossible to realize.

[Sooner5030]

also, I am interested in two totally different approaches. Each could be "effective" in lowering some costs but eventually we have to address our cultural problems.

1. Go totally free market. Try to make health care and insurance a purely competitive market if possible

2. Go VA. Provide not the best but a baseline to every citizen for any catastrophic events. Others could still purchase insurance to get "good" service

Either one could be tried......but both would have some benefit if we broke the tie between health insurance and employer-employee.

[Caboose]

The rest of the civilized world IS entitled to healthcare. I think I should be too, and it's very likely that if I was entitled to healthcare, not only would I get it (along with everyone else), but I'd pay a lot less for it.

But YOU aren't. If you want to trade freedom for the illusion of security move to one of the many entitlement societies right across the pond that share your failed ideology. You can sit around in a coffee shop with your Ipad and skinny jeans with all the other Jared's and tell each other how much smarter you are than everyone else while your new country are all teeters on the edge of financial collapse.

[Midtowner]

But YOU aren't. If you want to trade freedom for the illusion of security move to one of the many entitlement societies right across the pond that share your failed ideology. You can sit around in a coffee shop with your Ipad and skinny jeans with all the other Jared's and tell each other how much smarter you are than everyone else while your new country are all teeters on the edge of financial collapse.

I'm just talking about healthcare here. And no system or ideology is good for every single situation. Socialism happens to work best for healthcare, capitalism happens to work best for the delivery of many other goods or services. Government can have a healthy blend of all of it.

[Sooner5030]

problems other than insurance:

1. demographics - we have somewhat of a spoiled population. Based on workers to nonworkers (retired, unemployed or others) for fifty plus years we could afford our government interventions/services. This is no longer the case and it will only get worse. Thank you very much baby-boomers, the wars on poverty and drugs

2. obesity and the personal responsibility for ones health.

3. the abuse of routine care. My biggest concern with HMOs and any type of government take over. I can just picture what the clinics will look like once the mob thinks it is "free".

4. medical industry ties to regulation. How much is that new CT or MRI machine? How many do we need?

5. Pharmacy claims expense. We are a therapeutic society and if you can't get your fix with a doc then just take a pill. We have one for everything now. I think my parents take like 6 a day. I don't want to know how much each one cost.

6. paying $60,000 for a hip replacement for a 90 year old grandma. Does this make any sense? What utility is gained with that new hip?

[Caboose]

I'm just talking about healthcare here. And no system or ideology is good for every single situation. Socialism happens to work best for healthcare, capitalism happens to work best for the delivery of many other goods or services. Government can have a healthy blend of all of it.

Socialism happens to be disqualified to be considered "best" for any situation because it is fully based on coercion. If you see problems with our healthcare system feel free to fix them within a framework of individual liberty.

[Midtowner]

Socialism happens to be disqualified to be considered "best" for any situation because it is fully based on coercion. If you see problems with our healthcare system feel free to fix them within a framework of individual liberty.

No thanks.

[Caboose]

No thanks.

And there lies the problem. Your complete disregard for individual liberty. At least you can admit it.

Midtowner in 1850: Well, son, the Negores on MY plantation are entitled to healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing. I am pretty progressive too, so I allow them to marry and I allow them to keep their families intact. Compare the health of my Negores to that of those in the wild. I think you will see that by all measures my system is superior.

Me: Um, dude... they are slaves. Pretty hard to say that your system is the "best" for them. Why dont we work on a system that allows them to provide those things for themselves while being free to pursue their own endeavors?

Midtowner: NO THANKS!

[Midtowner]

So you're forced to pay taxes which build roads and an interstate highway system. Is that unlawful and immoral coercion?

[Sooner5030]

I also believe that a VA system would be the only model that would work if we went total government. Not my preferred option but I wish our mob would explore all options other than "Hope and Change" rhetoric.

http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjan11/healthcare-solution01-11.html


Sickcare thrives on an unhealthy entitlement of "rights" which are ultimately tools to divert an ever-greater share of the national income to sickcare cartels.

Radical transformation often boils down to this: Do more of what works and stop doing what doesn't work.

What we need is a system based on fostering well-being, patient responsibility, education and community. What we have is a system that see chronic disease as a profit center, a system which isolates people and worships the "doctor-patient" relationship when what we as a nation need is a culture of community and integrated health which draws upon resources much broader than doctors and nurses in hospitals.

For example, sickcare treats a 260-pound (obese) patient who smokes and is complaining of sore knees and heart trouble with knee replacements and surgical stents: two immensely costly and profitable operations. After consuming vast amounts of money, the patient is still smoking, still overweight, and still in poor health. His health was essentially ignored in favor of "treating" specific conditions which are profit centers. The patient's overall well-being is not profitable so it is ignored other than lip-service.

A more rational and "integrated health" treatment would be to offer classes and group therapy/support on stopping smoking, losing 80 pounds via fitness and better diet, and also address whatever mental-health issues may be behind the patient's poor health: stress, depression, anxiety, etc.

These treatments work by engaging the patient in his own care and in communities of other people struggling with the same issues. They end the isolation and teach the person that health is not something that is "treated" so much as lived. Such as system has many jobs that pay $48,000 rather than $148,000, and no profit centers.

If we are truly serious about transforming sickcare into healthcare, then we have to look at what currently works on a large scale.

The only large-scale healthcare provider that functions on a cost-effective and treatment-effective basis in the U.S. is the Veterans Administration. Many people judge the VA on its past reputation, or on the problems that stemmed from poor integration with active-duty medical care after the Second Gulf War. But if the goal is to provide healthcare for 4% of GDP, then the VA is the only large-scale model that works. The VA has many innovative low-cost systems which are basically unknown to the sickcare cartels and to the general public.

Some people claim Medicare is a model, but as its costs continue to expand far faster then the GDP, it is widely recognized as unsustainable.

Medicare is a hybrid of the worst elements of a State/cartel system: it is easily gamed for private profit, and there are few constraints on fraud.

The VA works because it is owned and operated by the Federal government. It has no insurance industry or malpractice industry to feed and its doctors have no incentives to game the system for private profit. It provides care to millions of vets, many needing intensive care, for $40 billion a year--less than 10% of Medicare's bloated, open-ended cost.

Is VA care perfect? No. Do people have to wait? Yes. Are there limits on the care VA provides? Yes. Are the doctors and nurses allowed to practice their trade without interference from insurance executives? Yes.

The VA has the only nationally integrated patient database. The savings from this, both in treatment and cost, are significant.

In essence, the VA is a model for a government-owned system which offers basic care for reasonable costs. Combine the VA model (outpatient clinics, national database, etc.) with Kaiser Permanente's extensive patient education services, and you have a system which the nation could actually afford.

Kasier offers a model for large-scale integrative health education and support that requires and encourages patient action. Getting people into support groups that teach them how to improve their mental and physical health works.

Unlike the VA, this new national system with be opt-in: if you prefer to pay cash for your healthcare or buy private insurance, go ahead; no one's stopping you. If anyone can provide better care for lower cost than the national system, then by all means provide it. (The national healthcare system would have a co-pay for every visit and service: nothing is free, because when anything is free, it is wasted/squandered.)

A payroll tax of 2.9% (currently the Medicare payroll tax) would be paid by all workers, on all wages, and by all investors on all investment income.

Medicare would be abolished, along with Medicaid and the fraud-riddled Workers Compensation system. A system modeled on the VA, with limited care (sorry, no $100,000 doses of "maybe this works, maybe it doesn't" meds) with Kaiser Permanente-type patient education would be ungameable and difficult to sue. Without outside vendors and labs to funnel money to, the avenues for fraud would drop to near-zero.

With no insurance system to burn through 40% of the money, the savings would be immense.

Yes, it would have all the problems inherent in any bureaucracy. But ultimately it would be forced to compete with a wide-open private sector, which would be unable to compete with the government-owned care if it remained as absurdly pricey as it is now.

If I make $50,000 a year, I would pay $1,450 a year in taxes to support the government option. If I didn't like the government service, etc., then I would be free to buy insurance or just save my money and buy care for cash.

Various insurance companies would undoubtedly offer "supplemental" insurance to cover whatever costly treatment the government system didn't offer, with all the usual constraints on coverage.

The target would be to reduce total healthcare costs to 8% of GDP--4% on the national system available to every citizen of any age, and 4% on private-sector spending for additional care people want enough to pay for it themselves.

This is all tilting at windmills, because the status quo is unreformable. Rather than make adult trade-offs and rational choices about a system which might cost half of the current "sickcare," what will happen is the status quo will devolve: Medicare will exist, but it will be increasingly difficult to find a doctor willing to accept its rates and restrictions.

[Midtowner]

I also believe that a VA system would be the only model that would work if we went total government. Not my preferred option but I wish our mob would explore all options other than "Hope and Change" rhetoric.


I'd have rather seen a VA style system or a single payer system. So would the Dems. Blame lobbyists.

[Caboose]

So you're forced to pay taxes which build roads and an interstate highway system. Is that unlawful and immoral coercion?

Because roads! Because Fire Department!


So therefore, the Federal Government has the authority to take 100% of your income and spend it on Dick Cheney's licorice sticks. Why? Because roads!!! Let's take it further, the Federal Government, according to Midtowner, has the authority to tell you who to marry, if you can have kids, if you can own a car and what kind, what your occupation will be, and even whether or not you will have to step into the gas chamber next week... because roads!

But to answer your question, all coercion is immoral ultimately, unless it directed at someone who is infringing upon the rights of another.

Is my refusal to buy health insurance infringing on your rights? No. So you coercing me to is immoral.

[pphilfran]

OR we could have everyone covered when they inevitably get sick. Nearly everyone is going to have healthcare costs at some point in their life which they won't be able to afford on their own. It's inevitable. Put everyone in the same risk pool, lower costs overall and enjoy economies of scale which would otherwise be impossible to realize.

I agree with putting everyone in the same risk pool...

[Midtowner]

Because roads! Because Fire Department!

Just illustrating that some systems work better under government control. Healthcare is included in that list.


So therefore, the Federal Government has the authority to take 100% of your income and spend it on Dick Cheney's licorice sticks. Why? Because roads!!! Let's take it further, the Federal Government, according to Midtowner, has the authority to tell you who to marry, if you can have kids, if you can own a car and what kind, what your occupation will be, and even whether or not you will have to step into the gas chamber next week... because roads!

The federal government has a lot of power, that's for sure. They could take 100% of your income if they wanted to. Would whoever authorized that be immediately voted out of office? Yep. That's how it works.

Some of those other items are just plain dumb and not supported by anything I've said.


But to answer your question, all coercion is immoral ultimately.

Immoral to charge taxes for building roads? You're not going to even admit that there are some things the government can just do better?

[Sooner5030]

I'd have rather seen a VA style system or a single payer system. So would the Dems. Blame lobbyists.

If the dems put in a system called "VA like" it would still be gamed because they will be supported by the industry. Want some re-election cash? Just ensure that when government takes over I get taken care of in the procurement process. PLease put these words in the next FAR regulation. thanks

Insurance is nothing more than playing with math. Betting on probability. It's not that evil.

[Midtowner]

Insurance is nothing more than playing with math. Betting on probability. It's not that evil.

Playing with math? You're talking about an industry which routinely gets to decide whether you live or die. Hardly fun and games.

[pphilfran]

problems other than insurance:

1. demographics - we have somewhat of a spoiled population. Based on workers to nonworkers (retired, unemployed or others) for fifty plus years we could afford our government interventions/services. This is no longer the case and it will only get worse. Thank you very much baby-boomers, the wars on poverty and drugs

2. obesity and the personal responsibility for ones health.

3. the abuse of routine care. My biggest concern with HMOs and any type of government take over. I can just picture what the clinics will look like once the mob thinks it is "free".

4. medical industry ties to regulation. How much is that new CT or MRI machine? How many do we need?

5. Pharmacy claims expense. We are a therapeutic society and if you can't get your fix with a doc then just take a pill. We have one for everything now. I think my parents take like 6 a day. I don't want to know how much each one cost.

6. paying $60,000 for a hip replacement for a 90 year old grandma. Does this make any sense? What utility is gained with that new hip?

I do not care how old you are...service should not be withheld based on age...it is the patients choice...

Many years ago I blew out my knee and was getting therapy...each day I would see this super old lady with both legs amputated learning to walk with artificial legs...she busted her azz to walk down a hallway, sweat pouring from her forehead...one day she stopped in front of me and ask me how old I thought she was...I said 70 and she laughed out loud...told me to talk to the nurses...I can't remember the exact age but she was in her 90's...

She damn sure had a benefit from the new 'legs'...I could see her determination...no giving up with her...

[pphilfran]

I think it is the Swiss system that allows no profit to be made on the basic plan that everyone receives...they can make a profit on the add on items...private room, lower deductibles, etc...

I like their system...

[Sooner5030]

I do not care how old you are...service should not be withheld based on age...it is the patients choice...

Many years ago I blew out my knee and was getting therapy...each day I would see this super old lady with both legs amputated learning to walk with artificial legs...she busted her azz to walk down a hallway, sweat pouring from her forehead...one day she stopped in front of me and ask me how old I thought she was...I said 70 and she laughed out loud...told me to talk to the nurses...I can't remember the exact age but she was in her 90's...

She damn sure had a benefit from the new 'legs'...I could see her determination...no giving up with her...

it's just not practical to not have limitations. The system will fail just like the current one. Someone has to say no to certain treatments. If you ignore this fact it will never work. Too much money to be made for treatment. Yes the government may administer the treatment but some contractor will be providing the device and in some cases the service.

[Caboose]

Just illustrating that some systems work better under government control. Healthcare is included in that list.



The federal government has a lot of power, that's for sure. They could take 100% of your income if they wanted to. Would whoever authorized that be immediately voted out of office? Yep. That's how it works.

Some of those other items are just plain dumb and not supported by anything I've said.



Immoral to charge taxes for building roads? You're not going to even admit that there are some things the government can just do better?

I guess I am not making this point clear... if it was achieved through coercion it can not be "better".

Example: The US government attempted to coerce the taxpayers at gunpoint into giving them 400 million to build a bridge in Alaska (never actually built).

Now lets say there had been no opposition and the government built it.
And lets say a private company raised some money on their own and built a similar bridge right by the government one. But the private company hit some snags, or just wasnt as good, and it cost them 470 million for a lesser bridge.

Now according to you, the government (socialism) "did it better" because the bridge was cheaper and the bridge is measurably better than the private company (note* cheaper and better almost NEVER happens in government).

But that ignores the underlying issue.... the socialist way was to STEAL (Literally at gunpoint) money from the people and throw it away on a bridge to nowhere. People's lives were literally ruined over the aggregate of projects like this. People got behind on their taxes, went into debt, declared bankruptcy, Dad's went to the pen, families ruined, etc.

The private company raised money cooperatively, people who wanted to invest or contribute did so, people who did not want to risk money investing in a toll bridge in Alaska weren't forced to. If anyone lost money, went into debt, the bankruptcy, the pen, or lost their family because of this ****ty bridge... it was due to their OWN decisions.

Anyone who says the coercion method is "better", REGARDLESS of the measurable outcome of the project (bridge, healthcare, whatever), is quite frankly, makes them a ****ing fascist.


Let me put it in another even more hyperbolic way.... The rape method of having sex is never "better" than the consensual method no matter what measurement you select to demonstrate its superiority..... because it is rape and it is infringing on the rights and liberty of someone to achieve it.

[Caboose]

Playing with math? You're talking about an industry which routinely gets to decide whether you live or die. Hardly fun and games.

Hyperbole. You are responsible for your life, not an insurance company. If you feel like you need to mitigate against a 1 trillion dollar medical procedure then either buy insurance that will cover it or pony it up yourself. It is not up to the rest of us to pay for your health.

[Midtowner]

I guess I am not making this point clear... if it was achieved through coercion it can not be "better".

Example: The US government attempted to coerce the taxpayers at gunpoint into giving them 400 million to build a bridge in Alaska (never actually built).

Now lets say there had been no opposition and the government built it.
And lets say a private company raised some money on their own and built a similar bridge right by the government one. But the private company hit some snags, or just wasnt as good, and it cost them 470 million for a lesser bridge.

Now according to you, the government (socialism) "did it better" because the bridge was cheaper and the bridge is measurably better than the private company (note* cheaper and better almost NEVER happens in government).

But that ignores the underlying issue.... the socialist way was to STEAL (Literally at gunpoint) money from the people and throw it away on a bridge to nowhere. People's lives were literally ruined over the aggregate of projects like this. People got behind on their taxes, went into debt, declared bankruptcy, Dad's went to the pen, families ruined, etc.

The private company raised money cooperatively, people who wanted to invest or contribute did so, people who did not want to risk money investing in a toll bridge in Alaska weren't forced to. If anyone lost money, went into debt, the bankruptcy, the pen, or lost their family because of this ****ty bridge... it was due to their OWN decisions.

Anyone who says the coercion method is "better", REGARDLESS of the measurable outcome of the project (bridge, healthcare, whatever), is quite frankly, makes them a ****ing fascist.

So the possibility of something bad which might have happened (but didn't) is illustrative of what? Could we have built an interstate highway system without the use of eminent domain and taxation? Absolutely not. Our healthcare system spends double per capita as anyone in the developed world and gets no better outcomes. Those cost-savings abroad are only possible because of a superior approach to healthcare.

[pphilfran]

it's just not practical to not have limitations. The system will fail just like the current one. Someone has to say no to certain treatments. If you ignore this fact it will never work. Too much money to be made for treatment. Yes the government may administer the treatment but some contractor will be providing the device and in some cases the service.

That is treading on thin ice...that lady I spoke of paid her money over many years...she has the same policy as the guy that is 70...she is entitled to the same treatment if the doctor recommends the procedure...

Who should decide at what age a treatment should be removed from the acceptable list?

If something would only benefit 50% of the aged should it be banned? 25%? 10%?

The current system is not failing due to excessive procedures being performed on the elderly...

The current system is failing because not everyone is covered...
It is failing due to the costs and time to become a doctor...
It is failing because of the multiple layers of paperwork/management to have a procedure authorized and then get the bill paid...
It is failing due to the cost of new procedures ( I think you brought up the point on how many ct machines do we need)...and everybody want the latest and greatest...
It is failing due to little or no out of pocket expense...(I think you also touched on this point)
It is failing because we let them advertise prescription drugs (I think there are only two countries in the world that allow this...New Zealand?)

This list is endless...

[Dale Ellis]

I'm not an indigent. I earn a decent living. Decent enough to be able to afford insurance, yet not enough to be able to pay for my care if I needed treatment for cancer.

Yes and that's why people with any common sense purchase health insurance. I have a hard time understanding how someone with a home, an automobile (or two) and I phone, cable TV and a big screen, can't afford to pay for a healthcare plan.

[Dale Ellis]

Hyperbole. You are responsible for your life, not an insurance company. If you feel like you need to mitigate against a 1 trillion dollar medical procedure then either buy insurance that will cover it or pony it up yourself. It is not up to the rest of us to pay for your health.

Oh, but he thinks it is.

[pphilfran]

Hyperbole. You are responsible for your life, not an insurance company. If you feel like you need to mitigate against a 1 trillion dollar medical procedure then either buy insurance that will cover it or pony it up yourself. It is not up to the rest of us to pay for your health.

We end up paying anyway...

The person without health care will still get the procedure for a serious condition...if they do not have insurance they damn sure won't have the funds to pay for a high dollar cure...since Mr/Mrs No Insurance isn't going to pay, whoever eats the cost of the work performed (hospital/doctor/others) will just increase billing to everyone else to cover the loss...and Mr/Mrs No Insurance is not going to use the most economical part of the system...they are going to hit the ER and that is when we see costs explode...

In the end we pay for that persons health care through increased taxes or high premiums due to the cost increase passed on by others...

[Dale Ellis]

I think it is the Swiss system that allows no profit to be made on the basic plan that everyone receives...they can make a profit on the add on items...private room, lower deductibles, etc...

I like their system...

and when is the last time you went there to receive care?

[Sooner5030]

That is treading on thin ice...that lady I spoke of paid her money over many years...she has the same policy as the guy that is 70...she is entitled to the same treatment if the doctor recommends the procedure...

Who should decide at what age a treatment should be removed from the acceptable list?

If something would only benefit 50% of the aged should it be banned? 25%? 10%?

The current system is not failing due to excessive procedures being performed on the elderly...

The current system is failing because not everyone is covered...
It is failing due to the costs and time to become a doctor...
It is failing because of the multiple layers of paperwork/management to have a procedure authorized and then get the bill paid...
It is failing due to the cost of new procedures ( I think you brought up the point on how many ct machines do we need)...and everybody want the latest and greatest...
It is failing due to little or no out of pocket expense...(I think you also touched on this point)
It is failing because we let them advertise prescription drugs (I think there are only two countries in the world that allow this...New Zealand?)

This list is endless...

Fine, if the population views endless service as a public good then at least lets account for it and start a reserve. Accountancy is all about being open and honest with finances. We have some future obligations that we should probably book an expense for. Yes the cash disbursement has not occured but the service is known to be due and we can probably reasonably estimate it.

the actual number might scare the mob into sobriety though.

[pphilfran]

and when is the last time you went there to receive care?

Never have...I do like the way their system is built...our current system is a house of cards...

[Dale Ellis]

I'd have rather seen a VA style system or a single payer system. So would the Dems. Blame lobbyists.

You've said numerous times in other threads that you did not want a single payer system and that is not what this healthcare bill is moving towards. By the way Mr. "everyone should have healthcare" tell everyone here about the great healthcare plan you provide for you TWO employees.

[Caboose]

So the possibility of something bad which might have happened (but didn't) is illustrative of what?

It DID happen. People were coerced into paying for a government project. Coercion. It happens. It happens every day. It is happening right now with your money and mine. The government is taking it from us at gun point and wasting it. Your socialist ideology is based on coercing the population. Capitalism is based on cooperation. That is why at the end of the day the result of the free market is superior to the result of socialism. No matter how you measure it or what the result is. Socialism is immediately disqualified from being "better" because it is based on coercion.

Look if the final end result of the free market is a Ford Pinto and the final end result of socialism is a BMW.... the free market result is superior... because it was produced morally, without coercion, and was guided by the wants and needs of the market.

[pphilfran]

Fine, if the population views endless service as a public good then at least lets account for it and start a reserve. Accountancy is all about being open and honest with finances. We have some future obligations that we should probably book an expense for. Yes the cash disbursement has not occured but the service is known to be due and we can probably reasonably estimate it.

the actual number might scare the mob into sobriety though.

I am not saying endless service...I am saying it is the doctor and the patient that must decide if a procedure is needed...I have no say in the matter...neither should a insurer or our government...age should have nothing to do with it....

Doctor...patient....

[Midtowner]

Look if the final end result of the free market is a Ford Pinto and the final end result of socialism is a BMW.... the free market result is superior... because it was produced morally, without coercion, and was guided by the wants and needs of the market.

Except one of those vehicles explodes on impact. That defect was known to the capitalist manufacturers who decided to let people be maimed and killed rather than spend $15/car to fix the problem because the cost of the lawsuits (they thought) would be less than correcting the problem.

[pphilfran]

You've said numerous times in other threads that you did not want a single payer system and that is not what this healthcare bill is moving towards. By the way Mr. "everyone should have healthcare" tell everyone here about the great healthcare plan you provide for you TWO employees.

His point just blows completely over you head...

If his competition does not pay for their employers health care premium and Mid pays for his employees...Mid is at a disadvantage...all it takes is a few to not offer the bene and it pushes the rest of the industry in the same direction...make it a balanced playing field and Midtowner will supply the benefits...

But he ain't gonna go broke or take a significant hit on his salary to stay competitive...

Go into Dillards or JCP and see how many full time employees they have....the vast majority of part time...they don't give benefits to part time...but they damn sure will get 32-34 hours a week...

[Caboose]

Except one of those vehicles explodes on impact. That defect was known to the capitalist manufacturers who decided to let people be maimed and killed rather than spend $15/car to fix the problem because the cost of the lawsuits (they thought) would be less than correcting the problem.

Yet your method is still inferior to the ****ing exploding car because with my method I am not forced to buy the piece of ****. Unreal isn't it? With your method, whether it produced a BMW or an exploding Pinto.... everyone would be coerced to buy it. And that is the point that you can't seem to wrap your swollen head around. It isn't the necessarily end result that is the problem with socialism (although it almost always is ****tier than the free market result)... it is the fact that it was achieved through coercion.

[pphilfran]

Except one of those vehicles explodes on impact. That defect was known to the capitalist manufacturers who decided to let people be maimed and killed rather than spend $15/car to fix the problem because the cost of the lawsuits (they thought) would be less than correcting the problem.

I think the $15 is on the high end...closer to 10 or 11....

[Midtowner]

Yet your method is still inferior to the ****ing exploding car because with my method I am not forced to buy the piece of ****. Unreal isn't it?

Except under the capitalist system, although Ford knows their cars explode on impact, they don't have to warn you and there's no reasonable way you could figure it out on your own. They've made a calculated risk which says risking killing or maiming you is good for their bottom line to the tune of (thanks pphil) about $10/car.

And the Swiss or German systems, which cost less by a long shot, provide equal and sometimes better healthcare options than our own system.

[Caboose]

Except under the capitalist system, although Ford knows their cars explode on impact, they don't have to warn you and there's no reasonable way you could figure it out on your own. They've made a calculated risk which says risking killing or maiming you is good for their bottom line to the tune of (thanks pphil) about $10/car.

And the Swiss or German systems, which cost less by a long shot, provide equal and sometimes better healthcare options than our own system.

You are not very good at understanding analogies are you?

The Ford Pinto was produced in a (mostly-capitalist) system and quickly became a laughing stock of the industry, no one wanted one, and no one was forced to buy one.

Had the Ford Pinto been produced in your system, not only would they have not been fixed, everyone would HAVE to buy one.

The ultimate point is that it doesnt matter if your system produces a pinto or a BMW in the end, it can NOT be better because whatever the result it was achieved via coercion, not cooperation.

dog turd produced by cooperation > diamond produced by slavery.

If you still don't get it there is nothing that will change your mind.

The thing is, we both want the same. The best health care system we can get. The difference is you are willing to **** all over everyone else's freedom to get it, and I am not.
This ultimately is the problem with all Liberal ideas (And let's be real here, modern Liberalism is merely Socialism under another name)... that they have little or no regard for individual liberty. The rights of individuals are trampled under the guise of security and protection.

You are just another Jared. You have convinced yourself that you know what is best for everyone else even though they didn't ask you, and you are willing to subject them to tyranny to give it to them.

[Dale Ellis]

Except under the capitalist system, although Ford knows their cars explode on impact, they don't have to warn you and there's no reasonable way you could figure it out on your own. They've made a calculated risk which says risking killing or maiming you is good for their bottom line to the tune of (thanks pphil) about $10/car.

And the Swiss or German systems, which cost less by a long shot, provide equal and sometimes better healthcare options than our own system.

GTFO of this country since apparently the ONLY thing you like about it is the fact that you can come on a message board and run your FUKING mouth. Move to Sweden, and take advantage of their tremendous health care, maybe then you can actually provide it coverage for your two pathetic, part time employees that work in your tiny, little, pint sized law firm. I'm so sick of liberal pieces of **** like you that have nothing good to say about this country, yet take advantage of benefit it provides you. You sir SUCK!!

[Dale Ellis]

You are not very good at understanding analogies are you?

The Ford Pinto was produced in a (mostly-capitalist) system and quickly became a laughing stock of the industry, no one wanted one, and no one was forced to buy one.

Had the Ford Pinto been produced in your system, not only would they have not been fixed, everyone would HAVE to buy one.

The ultimate point is that it doesnt matter if your system produces a pinto or a BMW in the end, it can NOT be better because whatever the result it was achieved via coercion, not cooperation.

dog turd produced by cooperation > diamond produced by slavery.

If you still don't get it there is nothing that will change your mind.

The thing is, we both want the same. The best health care system we can get. The difference is you are willing to **** all over everyone else's freedom to get it, and I am not.
This ultimately is the problem with all Liberal ideas (And let's be real here, modern Liberalism is merely Socialism under another name)... that they have little or no regard for individual liberty. The rights of individuals are trampled under the guise of security and protection.

You are just another Jared. You have convinced yourself that you know what is best for everyone else even though they didn't ask you, and you are willing to subject them to tyranny to give it to them.

He's like the rest of the liberal beggars, he'd rather have a crappy product given to him at someone else's expense, rather than have the top of the line product that he had to work his *** off to earn. The guy runs his big mouth about everyone's right to "FREE" healthcare, yet he doesn't offer any type of benefits package to his two employees because he "can't afford it". He is covered under his wife's employers healthcare. The guy makes his wife pay for HIS healthcare. Typical liberal BUM!! Go ahead Mid, you can now post your resume in response.

[East Coast Bias]

GTFO of this country since apparently the ONLY thing you like about it is the fact that you can come on a message board and run your FUKING mouth. Move to Sweden, and take advantage of their tremendous health care, maybe then you can actually provide it coverage for your two pathetic, part time employees that work in your tiny, little, pint sized law firm. I'm so sick of liberal pieces of **** like you that have nothing good to say about this country, yet take advantage of benefit it provides you. You sir SUCK!!

This is usually where the argument goes when reason fails..You don't agree with me so GTFO?? And liberals are accused of thinking they are better than the rest?

[Caboose]

This is usually where the argument goes when reason fails..You don't agree with me so GTFO?? And liberals are accused of thinking they are better than the rest?

That really isn't what is said... now is it?
Its not GTFO because you disagree with me...Its GTFO and go to one of the Liberal utopian societies that you keep claiming are so much better than the US. Its a "put your money where your mouth is" statement.

[East Coast Bias]

That really isn't what is said... now is it?
Its not GTFO because you disagree with me...Its GTFO and go to one of the Liberal utopian societies that you keep claiming are so much better than the US. Its a "put your money where your mouth is" statement.

Its exactly whats being said, and its been said before. BTW the two of you make a good pair.

[Dale Ellis]

That really isn't what is said... now is it?
Its not GTFO because you disagree with me...Its GTFO and go to one of the Liberal utopian societies that you keep claiming are so much better than the US. Its a "put your money where your mouth is" statement.

You hit the nail on the head. Apparently these liberals aren't much on reading comprehension.

[Dale Ellis]

Its exactly whats being said, and its been said before. BTW the two of you make a good pair.

Oh is it really "exactly" what I said? Quote me exactly and tell me where I said "You don't agree with me so GTFO". Remember you said that was exactly what I said. We'll all wait.............................................. ..

[East Coast Bias]

Oh is it really "exactly" what I said? Quote me exactly and tell me where I said "You don't agree with me so GTFO". Remember you said that was exactly what I said. We'll all wait.............................................. ..
I think the implication of what you said is pretty clear. If you deny that you want him to leave the country because he disagrees with you, I am fine with that. You haven't said that yet, either? I think you should try to discipline yourself to base your arguments on logic and reason. Your personal attacks and professed "hate" for liberals negate most of what you say.

[sappstuf]

http://gifs.gifbin.com/3204840swsw.gif

[Midtowner]

GTFO of this country since apparently the ONLY thing you like about it is the fact that you can come on a message board and run your FUKING mouth. Move to Sweden, and take advantage of their tremendous health care, maybe then you can actually provide it coverage for your two pathetic, part time employees that work in your tiny, little, pint sized law firm. I'm so sick of liberal pieces of **** like you that have nothing good to say about this country, yet take advantage of benefit it provides you. You sir SUCK!!

What an intelligent and witty retort. I'm not leaving and I want to make this country better. I want us to catch up to the more enlightened first world countries which have had socialized medicine for the last fifty years or so... y'know.. join the rest of the civilized world. I've explained multiple times why I don't provide health insurance. Either you're ignoring it, don't understand it because you wouldn't know how to run a small business, or you have a reading comprehension issue.

[Midtowner]

You are not very good at understanding analogies are you?

Nah, you just provided me with a gem of an analogy when you brought up the Pinto.


The Ford Pinto was produced in a (mostly-capitalist) system and quickly became a laughing stock of the industry, no one wanted one, and no one was forced to buy one.

You're kidding, right? Sales in '73 were 400,000 units/year. Sales did fall towards when it was replaced by the Escort, but it was still selling 100,000+ units per year in the early 1980s. It may have been the laughing stock of the industry, and no doubt the reputation of being a death wagon hurt sales, but that neither stopped Ford from spending the $10/car to fix the explosion problem nor did it really hurt sales all that much.


The ultimate point is that it doesnt matter if your system produces a pinto or a BMW in the end, it can NOT be better because whatever the result it was achieved via coercion, not cooperation.

dog turd produced by cooperation > diamond produced by slavery.

You still haven't responded (except with sneering) to the point that our public roads were produced and maintained by government coercion (as you put it) beets the alternative, i.e., a fully privatized road system which exists nowhere in the world for good reason.

Public police and fire departments don't seem to have viable private alternatives either.


The thing is, we both want the same. The best health care system we can get. The difference is you are willing to **** all over everyone else's freedom to get it, and I am not.

If the price of "freedom" as you put it is to pay double for everything for no good reason, then screw freedom. Folks are going to get sick. If they have coverage, fine, that's great. If not, they're getting treatment and those costs are being passed along to me, a healthy policy holder who pays out the nose for his policy, but hardly ever goes to the doctor.

Freedom here is an illusion. You are going to get sick eventually, and then with or without insurance, you're going to go to the doctor. The only question is whether you've used your freedom to ruin yourself financially and pass your costs along to me or whether you're going to choose to be financially responsible.

I don't hear you complaining about having to have liability insurance on your car. It's the exact same concept. You need to be responsible for the costs you impose on the system. It's not a freedom issue, it's an issue of personal responsibility. Laws are supposed to allow you to swing your fist up to the point you're making contact with someone else. If you get really sick and don't have insurance, then you are harming everyone else's interests.


You are just another Jared. You have convinced yourself that you know what is best for everyone else even though they didn't ask you, and you are willing to subject them to tyranny to give it to them.

Ah yes... public streets, police and fire departments, having to carry auto insurance = tyranny, right?

[okie52]

I don't want insurance companies to exist at all.

Spoken like a true trial lawyer.

Let's adopt the 1st world approach for healthcare by including tort caps and loser pays. Now that's civilized.

[Midtowner]

Spoken like a true trial lawyer.

Let's adopt the 1st world approach for healthcare by including tort caps and loser pays. Now that's civilized.

If we're operating within a socialized system, we'd probably have a lot fewer lawsuits because claims processing for physician negligence would be governed by principles of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Governmental Torts Claims Act suits are generally pretty quick and painless and quick to settle. Compared with the ridiculous cost of bringing medmal suits, most plaintiffs (and even their lawyers) would probably find that preferable.

[okie52]

The government is superior in a couple of ways here--they can take advantage of far greater economies of scale and the government's job is to deliver services, not make a profit.

Guaranteed when the government is involved it won't make a profit. Now how would it do if it had to live by the same rules as the insurance companies?

[Midtowner]

Guaranteed when the government is involved it won't make a profit. Now how would it do if it had to live by the same rules as the insurance companies?

It'd do just fine. Medicaid operates with 6%-8% overhead and is solvent. The VA does alright also. Getting the for-profit actors out of the game would be beneficial for everyone. Look at the Swiss, Canadian or German systems. They cost about half what ours costs and provide comparable end products.

[okie52]

If we're operating within a socialized system, we'd probably have a lot fewer lawsuits because claims processing for physician negligence would be governed by principles of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity. Governmental Torts Claims Act suits are generally pretty quick and painless and quick to settle. Compared with the ridiculous cost of bringing medmal suits, most plaintiffs (and even their lawyers) would probably find that preferable.

Yep, that may be true but insurance companies arent afforded that immunity now are they?

[okie52]

It'd do just fine. Medicaid operates with 6%-8% overhead and is solvent. The VA does alright also. Getting the for-profit actors out of the game would be beneficial for everyone. Look at the Swiss, Canadian or German systems. They cost about half what ours costs and provide comparable end products.

Hey I'm not always a capitalist but I like the rules to be the same for companies as for the government and that just isnt the case.

[Midtowner]

Yep, that may be true but insurance companies are afforded that immunity now are they?

Yes. Actually they are. There are hard caps on liability now. That means insurers will not have to pay the full amount of the damage their insureds caused. That's civil immunity right there. At least partially.

And really, it's a non-issue. Just look at Texas. They've had tons of insurance company friendly tort reform. It hasn't decreased premiums by a penny.

No one thinks that tort reform is even a major issue when it comes to the costs of delivering services. Study after study after study confirm this. I know I've linked up several such studies. You've done nothing but parrot insurance company rhetoric.

[okie52]

Yes. Actually they are. There are hard caps on liability now. That means insurers will not have to pay the full amount of the damage their insureds caused. That's civil immunity right there. At least partially.

And really, it's a non-issue. Just look at Texas. They've had tons of insurance company friendly tort reform. It hasn't decreased premiums by a penny.

No one thinks that tort reform is even a major issue when it comes to the costs of delivering services. Study after study after study confirm this. I know I've linked up several such studies. You've done nothing but parrot insurance company rhetoric.

No, I think if you are going to press for a European style healthcare plan you should include all of its components...not just the ones that benefit your self interests.

[okie52]

Yes. Actually they are. There are hard caps on liability now. That means insurers will not have to pay the full amount of the damage their insureds caused. That's civil immunity right there. At least partially.

And really, it's a non-issue. Just look at Texas. They've had tons of insurance company friendly tort reform. It hasn't decreased premiums by a penny.

No one thinks that tort reform is even a major issue when it comes to the costs of delivering services. Study after study after study confirm this. I know I've linked up several such studies. You've done nothing but parrot insurance company rhetoric.

ACA included hard caps and loser pays...I missed that.

[Midtowner]

ACA included hard caps and loser pays...I missed that.

So now you're for it?

And I don't personally benefit from medmal. I don't practice that sort of law. That area has become too complex and litigious for anyone to practice that sort of law part time.

[okie52]

So now you're for it?

And I don't personally benefit from medmal. I don't practice that sort of law. That area has become too complex and litigious for anyone to practice that sort of law part time.

I don't generally sell health insurance so I don't have a dog in the fight. Plus, I just found recently that the chickasaws cover most of my healthcare so rates don't impact me either.

I'll go with whatever works...socialist, commie, capitalist, etc...I don't really care but I like the playing field to be level for all involved.

[Dale Ellis]

I think the implication of what you said is pretty clear. If you deny that you want him to leave the country because he disagrees with you, I am fine with that. You haven't said that yet, either? I think you should try to discipline yourself to base your arguments on logic and reason. Your personal attacks and professed "hate" for liberals negate most of what you say.

No you said it was "exactly" what was said. Are you now backing off from that? I don't hate all liberals just the bums like Mid, who expect everyone else to pay for his healthcare, so he can afford to keep his two SUV's and his big house.

I have no respect for anyone who says they can't afford a health care plan, yet they have a car or two, an Iphone, a big screen, a digital camera, internet service, they take vacations, eat out, go to movies etc. But they can't afford to pay 600.00 a month of a health insurance plan.

[Caboose]

Nah, you just provided me with a gem of an analogy when you brought up the Pinto.



You're kidding, right? Sales in '73 were 400,000 units/year. Sales did fall towards when it was replaced by the Escort, but it was still selling 100,000+ units per year in the early 1980s. It may have been the laughing stock of the industry, and no doubt the reputation of being a death wagon hurt sales, but that neither stopped Ford from spending the $10/car to fix the explosion problem nor did it really hurt sales all that much.

You mean people had the freedom to buy a flawed car for cheap and some to and others chose not to? Oh the horror! If it is worth it me to save a few bucks on a car with a higher risk of danger to the driver, then what is it to you?




You still haven't responded (except with sneering) to the point that our public roads were produced and maintained by government coercion (as you put it) beets the alternative, i.e., a fully privatized road system which exists nowhere in the world for good reason.

Public police and fire departments don't seem to have viable private alternatives either.

I have responded repeatedly, you are just have a reading comprehension problem.

ANYTHING produced by cooperation beats (not beets) ANYTHING produced by coercion. Not by any measurement applied to end product, but by the fact that one was produced via freedom and the other was produced via tyranny. The very fact that you have to enslave other people to fund YOUR healthcare makes your healthcare system inferior.

The telling fact is that I proposed that we come up with a healthcare system that improves care within a framework of individual freedom, you flat out said "No Thanks".

That was really the end of the debate. You flat out admitted that your goal wasn't improved healthcare, or cheaper healthcare, or anything else but "less freedom".



If the price of "freedom" as you put it is to pay double for everything for no good reason, then screw freedom. Folks are going to get sick. If they have coverage, fine, that's great. If not, they're getting treatment and those costs are being passed along to me, a healthy policy holder who pays out the nose for his policy, but hardly ever goes to the doctor.

Freedom here is an illusion. You are going to get sick eventually, and then with or without insurance, you're going to go to the doctor. The only question is whether you've used your freedom to ruin yourself financially and pass your costs along to me or whether you're going to choose to be financially responsible.

Again, I have already illustrated the difference between you and I. You are willing to give away your own freedom (and worse, the freedom of others) for the illusion of security... or to "feel" like you are rectifying some cosmic injustice.



I don't hear you complaining about having to have liability insurance on your car. It's the exact same concept. You need to be responsible for the costs you impose on the system. It's not a freedom issue, it's an issue of personal responsibility. Laws are supposed to allow you to swing your fist up to the point you're making contact with someone else. If you get really sick and don't have insurance, then you are harming everyone else's interests.

It is NOT the same concept, and it blows my mind that someone who claims to be a lawyer would cling to this tired, busted, bull**** line of reasoning. Auto insurance mandates are NOT imposed by the federal government, they are at the state level. And no one in ANY state is mandated to own a car. If you OPT (freedom, see?) to own a car then the state has certain rules for you to follow. That is nothing remotely like me saying I dont want to have anything to do with your healthcare system and you using the FEDERAL government as a tool to steal money from me at gunpoint to pay for something you want.




Ah yes... public streets, police and fire departments, having to carry auto insurance = tyranny, right?

Yes, anything achieved via coercion is tyranny, to one degree or another.
You have a high tolerance for tyranny, I do not. Pretending it's not tyranny because it makes you "feel" safe isn't honest.

[Midtowner]

It is NOT the same concept, and it blows my mind that someone who claims to be a lawyer would cling to this tired, busted, bull**** line of reasoning. Auto insurance mandates are NOT imposed by the federal government, they are at the state level. And no one in ANY state is mandated to own a car. If you OPT (freedom, see?) to own a car then the state has certain rules for you to follow. That is nothing remotely like me saying I dont want to have anything to do with your healthcare system and you using the FEDERAL government as a tool to steal money from me at gunpoint to pay for something you want.

So the distinctions are two--that the tyranny, as you put it is imposed by the state, that makes it okay. Second, that you don't have to drive a car.

Okay, what's so different from state versus federal control, 'specially when the feds have the power to regulate that particular area? And as for being able to 'opt out,' are you telling me you can opt out of ever getting sick? Sign me up when you figure that one out.


Yes, anything achieved via coercion is tyranny, to one degree or another.
You have a high tolerance for tyranny, I do not. Pretending it's not tyranny because it makes you "feel" safe isn't honest.

So you'd rather have a patchwork of privately owned turnpikes all over the place where you'd plan your trip to work according to price fluctuations along the various routes instead of time? No, you simply prefer the tyranny of the wealthy and landed class to the tyranny of a government created by and for the people. At the end of the day, you're always going to be playing by someone else's rules.

[StoopTroup]

I'll take saving lives and fortunes over the interests of a shareholders seven days a week and twice on Tuesday.

That IMO is a good thing. It's kind of why folks buy insurance. I feel for insurance Companies when they gamble and a huge disaster hits that wipes them out as it hurts the folks who paid in and now can't file a claim as the Ins. Company is broke.

It's the gamble of selling insurance.

[Caboose]

So the distinctions are two--that the tyranny, as you put it is imposed by the state, that makes it okay.

I never said anything about it being "OK". I said it makes it not a valid comparison.

Second, that you don't have to drive a car.

By state laws buying a car is optional and hence buying car insurance is optional.


Okay, what's so different from state versus federal control, 'specially when the feds have the power to regulate that particular area? And as for being able to 'opt out,' are you telling me you can opt out of ever getting sick? Sign me up when you figure that one out.

Your argument is nonsensical. Regulate doesn't mean "force to buy". Who said you can opt out of being sick? How is that even relevant to the conversation?





So you'd rather have a patchwork of privately owned turnpikes all over the place where you'd plan your trip to work according to price fluctuations along the various routes instead of time? No, you simply prefer the tyranny of the wealthy and landed class to the tyranny of a government created by and for the people. At the end of the day, you're always going to be playing by someone else's rules.

Oh, so we are back to "because roads!"? So "because roads!" there is no limit on the authority of the Federal government. On top of that "Regulate" can mean anything any committee of Jared wants it to mean, so what use is the Constitution? Literally, how can any law be unconstitutional under your view?

[East Coast Bias]

I never said anything about it being "OK". I said it makes it not a valid comparison.


By state laws buying a car is optional and hence buying car insurance is optional.



Your argument is nonsensical. Regulate doesn't mean "force to buy". Who said you can opt out of being sick? How is that even relevant to the conversation?






Oh, so we are back to "because roads!"? So "because roads!" there is no limit on the authority of the Federal government. On top of that "Regulate" can mean anything any committee of Jared wants it to mean, so what use is the Constitution? Literally, how can any law be unconstitutional under your view?


Your "Jared" reference to describe liberals is kinda cute, do you have a character reference you use to describe conservatives? Mine would be "Roy". This would be a guy that looks like Larry the Cable guy and talks like Roy D. Mercer. He wears overalls with no shirt, hairy back exposed, a few teeth missing, uneducated, has an imaginary friend that cares what kind of sex people have and who they marry, believes that global warming and evolution are both conspiracies and always votes against his own self-interest. Yours?

[Caboose]

Your "Jared" reference to describe liberals is kinda cute, do you have a character reference you use to describe conservatives? Mine would be "Roy". This would be a guy that looks like Larry the Cable guy and talks like Roy D. Mercer. He wears overalls with no shirt, hairy back exposed, a few teeth missing, uneducated, has an imaginary friend that cares what kind of sex people have and who they marry, believes that global warming and evolution are both conspiracies and always votes against his own self-interest. Yours?

Jared is an actual person, Midtowner knows who it is.

I know who you are talking about, the main problem I have with your stereotype is that you think you know what his self-interest is. Makes you sound pretty Jared-y.

[East Coast Bias]

I never said anything about it being "OK". I said it makes it not a valid comparison.


By state laws buying a car is optional and hence buying car insurance is optional.



Your argument is nonsensical. Regulate doesn't mean "force to buy". Who said you can opt out of being sick? How is that even relevant to the conversation?






Oh, so we are back to "because roads!"? So "because roads!" there is no limit on the authority of the Federal government. On top of that "Regulate" can mean anything any committee of Jared wants it to mean, so what use is the Constitution? Literally, how can any law be unconstitutional under your view?

Roads is a pretty good concept to think what we could do together for healthcare if we could get over this idea that the government is the boogie man and that doing something that benefits everyone somehow harms individual freedoms. Think about it for a moment ? The State and Fed are both involved in the road system. Gasoline taxes pay for a good part of the cost, which means those that use the system pay for the system. None of us could finance even the road in front of our house, but together we can finance super highways. The reason we made this work was because we made it a priority. We needed the roads to build our country and economy. We need to make healthcare a priority. when we do we will find a way to do this together...

[East Coast Bias]

Jared is an actual person, Midtowner knows who it is.

Not the guy on the Subway commercials?

[okie52]

Not the guy on the Subway commercials?

Unlikely, that guy actually cut the fat.

[Midtowner]

Oh, so we are back to "because roads!"? So "because roads!" there is no limit on the authority of the Federal government. On top of that "Regulate" can mean anything any committee of Jared wants it to mean, so what use is the Constitution? Literally, how can any law be unconstitutional under your view?

Roads are a great example of where government coercion is needed and there just isn't any other good way to do it. Healthcare, over the past century has become a similar problem. We can take advantage of economies of scale and the fact that healthcare is something everyone has to use at some point in their life, and make it better for everyone.

As to whether it's Constitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in. As much as even the most conservative jurists on the Court have been in favor of expansive interpretations of the commerce clause, I wouldn't be shocked at all to see an 8-1 or 7-2 vote. Thomas' wife has cashed her checks, so we can count on Thomas (who is usually in favor of the expansive interpretation of the commerce clause) to vote with the righties, but I could easily see the rest of the conservative court voting in favor of its constitutionality. The fact is you're right, the Constitution did nothing to constrain the feds' authority under the commerce clause, and many times folks have been forced not to sell things in commerce or to sell them a certain way. Inserting an asterisk there just makes no legal sense.

Is the commerce clause an unlimited excuse for the feds to do anything? Not at all, but you can go educate yourself on how the constitution works.

[SCOUT]

Roads are a great example of where government coercion is needed and there just isn't any other good way to do it. Healthcare, over the past century has become a similar problem. We can take advantage of economies of scale and the fact that healthcare is something everyone has to use at some point in their life, and make it better for everyone.
.
I will give you full credit here. I really think you believe this and you think it is the best solution. I can truly respect that.

I don't agree though. I understand your line of thinking when it comes to economies of scale for healthcare, but the government isn't exactly the best candidate to exercise that benefit. I think it is one of those things that sound like a great idea but when you actually commit to it, you realize you have made a huge mistake.

Uncle Sam does a lot of things (ok, some) well. Efficiency isn't one of them, IMO.

[Midtowner]

I will give you full credit here. I really think you believe this and you think it is the best solution. I can truly respect that.

I don't agree though. I understand your line of thinking when it comes to economies of scale for healthcare, but the government isn't exactly the best candidate to exercise that benefit. I think it is one of those things that sound like a great idea but when you actually commit to it, you realize you have made a huge mistake.

Uncle Sam does a lot of things (ok, some) well. Efficiency isn't one of them, IMO.

Actually, Medicaid (not Medicare) runs as efficiently or more efficiently than most for-profit companies. It can be done. And how much efficiency do you really need when healthcare companies, which turn a 6-8% profit would be competing with an entity which doesn't want to make a profit. It wants to spend every dollar it gets on services.

There are some real efficiencies in the ACA. I hear about new stuff every day. For example, there's now a new office being put together to manage care for those folks who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Those double qualifiers are the most expensive folks in the system. They'll now be looked after by a Nurse Practitioner who will ensure they're getting the right preventative careand can avoid unnecessary hospitalizations, which are a big problem right now.

[SCOUT]

Actually, Medicaid (not Medicare) runs as efficiently or more efficiently than most for-profit companies. It can be done. And how much efficiency do you really need when healthcare companies, which turn a 6-8% profit would be competing with an entity which doesn't want to make a profit. It wants to spend every dollar it gets on services.

There are some real efficiencies in the ACA. I hear about new stuff every day. For example, there's now a new office being put together to manage care for those folks who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. Those double qualifiers are the most expensive folks in the system. They'll now be looked after by a Nurse Practitioner who will ensure they're getting the right preventative careand can avoid unnecessary hospitalizations, which are a big problem right now.
Did you just say that ACA is more efficient because it has another oversight organization?

[REDREX]

Further expansion of the Commerce Clause will do nothing but give the Federal Gov't more power over states and individuals---- With further expansion any activity could fall under the Commerce Clause

[REDREX]

If you think Medicare and Medicaid are well run you are kidding yourself

[Midtowner]

Did you just say that ACA is more efficient because it has another oversight organization?

That's just one aspect of it. You can read about it here.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare-medicaid-coordination/

[Midtowner]

Further expansion of the Commerce Clause will do nothing but give the Federal Gov't more power over states and individuals---- With further expansion any activity could fall under the Commerce Clause

That's the thing--just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it never could have been done before. Every time we pass a regulatory scheme, we're doing something new. Why is this any different? It's regulating commerce. I predict a blessing by the SCOTUS by the end of the year.

[REDREX]

Under your logic ----What would not fall under the Commerce Clause?

[Midtowner]

Under your logic ----What would not fall under the Commerce Clause?

Anything not having to do with the channels and instrumentalities of commerce.

[REDREX]

Like what?----Any activity in some way affects commerce----Name one

[SCOUT]

That's just one aspect of it. You can read about it here.

https://www.cms.gov/medicare-medicaid-coordination/
Believe it or not, but I have actually read the entire ACA. It has direct implications to my job. There are more references to new boards, oversights, and commissions than I care to think about. Government efficiency at its finest.

[REDREX]

Anything not having to do with the channels and instrumentalities of commerce.---Still waiting for an example of ANY ACTIVITY that does not affect Commerce

[Midtowner]

Like what?----Any activity in some way affects commerce----Name one

The Court has held that a law making it illegal "for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone." The Court held that the Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Then there was Morrison vs. United States, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), where the Court held that an act giving a civil private right of action against a rapist by a rape was not allowed under the commerce clause as the act of rape didn't have a substantial enough effect on interstate commerce to fall within the commerce clause's purview.

So it's not "any activity." There... I named two.

[REDREX]

So we can't have a gun near a school and rape does not fall under the commerce clause----Very convincing arguments---You need to reread Morrison v U.S.

[Midtowner]

So we can't have a gun near a school and rape does not fall under the commerce clause----Very convincing arguments

You asked for an example, I gave you two and you're still not happy? I'm shocked. Utterly shocked.

Perhaps you could try looking past the concrete two examples I gave you and think abstractly as to how the Constitution's reach. Obviously, those aren't the only two scenarios which could exist, but those are two examples of where the Court has found existing federal law to not fall under the commerce clause.

These instances are going to be pretty rare sine Congress is unlikely to pass laws pursuant to the commerce clause which don't regulate commerce.

[Frozen Sooner]

nm, see that Midtowner already answered.

[Dale Ellis]

What an intelligent and witty retort. I'm not leaving and I want to make this country better. I want us to catch up to the more enlightened first world countries which have had socialized medicine for the last fifty years or so... y'know.. join the rest of the civilized world. I've explained multiple times why I don't provide health insurance. Either you're ignoring it, don't understand it because you wouldn't know how to run a small business, or you have a reading comprehension issue.

You said you would only provide it for them if your were "FORCED TO" (your words) by the feds. Is that the reason you're referring to?

Small business my ***, you are a private attorney and you have a couple of people that do filing work for you and answer the phone. The bottom line is this , you are no different than the evil corps your rail against.
You under pay your employees, and you don't provide them any benefits. Typical liberal hypocrite, tell everyone what they should drive, yet you drive a gas guzzler, tell everyone what they should be eating, yet you eat whatever the hell you want. Bitch about businesses that don't provide healthcare for their employees yet you do not. Whine about the environment but do absolutely nothing about it.

I guess since your TWO employees are only part time, they are immune to disease, and don't need any coverage.

[Midtowner]

You said you would only provide it for them if your were "FORCED TO" (your words) by the feds. Is that the reason you're referring to?

Small business my ***, you are a private attorney and you have a couple of people that do filing work for you and answer the phone. The bottom line is this , you are no different than the evil corps your rail against.
You under pay your employees, and you don't provide them any benefits. Typical liberal hypocrite, tell everyone what they should drive, yet you drive a gas guzzler, tell everyone what they should be eating, yet you eat whatever the hell you want. Bitch about businesses that don't provide healthcare for their employees yet you do not. Whine about the environment but do absolutely nothing about it.

I guess since your TWO employees are only part time, they are immune to disease, and don't need any coverage.

Perhaps you've never run a small business. I've explained it to you several times, no need to rinse and repeat. I want to be forced to cover those things, but only if all my competitors are as well. I am different from many corporate actors in that I'm not spending millions of dollars to lobbyists to further oppress the lower classes and actually advocate that I should be required to pony up. I just won't do it if it puts me at a competitive disadvantage.

[REDREX]

Perhaps you've never run a small business. I've explained it to you several times, no need to rinse and repeat. I want to be forced to cover those things, but only if all my competitors are as well. I am different from many corporate actors in that I'm not spending millions of dollars to lobbyists to further oppress the lower classes and actually advocate that I should be required to pony up. I just won't do it if it puts me at a competitive disadvantage.---Not all of my competitors provide health benefits to employees but we do---- If it is the right thing to do why not step up and do it?---

[Midtowner]

---Not all of my competitors provide health benefits to employees but we do---- If it is the right thing to do why not step up and do it?---

I don't need to in order to remain competitive. Is there an echo in here?

Again, I've had to lecture you about being at the big boys table.... so heregoesagain... if you can't understand the difference between what I do in my own business versus how I'd like to change the role of every single employer, then you're just beyond help.

[REDREX]

I don't need to in order to remain competitive. Is there an echo in here?

Again, I've had to lecture you about being at the big boys table.... so heregoesagain... if you can't understand the difference between what I do in my own business versus how I'd like to change the role of every single employer, then you're just beyond help.---- Grow up---You are just too cheap to pay for employee health insurance---- typical arrogant liberal

[Dale Ellis]

In other words, it's "do as I say, but not as I do". He's like every other liberal, his professed beliefs and convictions are a mile wide and an 8th of an inch deep. He doesn't provide coverage for his employees because it would mean less money in his pocket. There is NO other reason.

[Dale Ellis]

---- Grow up---You are just too cheap to pay for employee health insurance---- typical arrogant liberal

Typical hypocritical liberal. Just like Michelle Obama telling us all what we should eat, yet her *** is "two axe handles and a piece of rope" wide.

[East Coast Bias]

I wondered how long it would take for these two to give up on reason and logic and go to their honey hole. Personal attacks....

[Midtowner]

This is kind of what every thread boils down to. Red and Dale are exposed and then start to resort to personal attacks. Red lacks even basic constitutional knowledge and shows it by asking dumb questions which he wouldn't ask if he had a fundamental understanding of the issues. Dale just takes things out of context and refuses to acknowledge things I've said multiple times. Par for the course. I appreciate intelligent discourse with posters like SCOUT who is capable agreeing to disagree without resorting to histrionics and name calling.

[East Coast Bias]

This is kind of what every thread boils down to. Red and Dale are exposed and then start to resort to personal attacks. Red lacks even basic constitutional knowledge and shows it by asking dumb questions which he wouldn't ask if he had a fundamental understanding of the issues. Dale just takes things out of context and refuses to acknowledge things I've said multiple times. Par for the course. I appreciate intelligent discourse with posters like SCOUT who is capable agreeing to disagree without resorting to histrionics and name calling.
There are some good posters on here that I enjoy the banter with. PPhil and Okie52 and a host of others. I have learned from many of their posts and appreciate the respect they give and receive.The ones that right up front profess to hate liberals or other groups and paint everyone with their stereotypes is hard to suffer. I think we have seen many of these posters under other names.

[cleller]

Been dealing with Medicare heavy duty for several weeks on my mom's behalf. My wife, brother and I (all college grads) can barely navigate the mess. The people in health care really don't understand it, either, they just know what forms to fill out.

The bottom line is that most families do not prepare or think about health care at all. When an aging parent is in need of long term care, they rely completely on the state (medicaid) and walk away.

Anyone with assets can expect to be drained dry via insurance costs, and direct payments to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. They will be paying astronomical costs due to all our friends and neighbors that never save for a rainy day.

If this problem seems bad now, in 10-20 years it may be just unbelievable. Nobody wants to pay their way, yet the government cannot begin to pick up the tab. This is gonna be bad.

[REDREX]

This is kind of what every thread boils down to. Red and Dale are exposed and then start to resort to personal attacks. Red lacks even basic constitutional knowledge and shows it by asking dumb questions which he wouldn't ask if he had a fundamental understanding of the issues. Dale just takes things out of context and refuses to acknowledge things I've said multiple times. Par for the course. I appreciate intelligent discourse with posters like SCOUT who is capable agreeing to disagree without resorting to histrionics and name calling.---I took and did well in the same boring Constitutional law classses you took----Grow up

[Midtowner]

---I took and did well in the same boring Constitutional law classses you took----Grow up

Asking the dumbass questions you did, you clearly didn't walk away learning the fundamental basics of Constitutional Law with respect to interstate commerce.

For a layman, I'd consider that pretty forgivable. For someone who "took and did well in" all of the same conlaw classes I took, that's pretty bad. Especially for someone who thinks he's so fervently defending a document he really doesn't know that much about.

[REDREX]

Asking the dumbass questions you did, you clearly didn't walk away learning the fundamental basics of Constitutional Law with respect to interstate commerce.--- I understand it as well as you do -----I just believe that it has limits you don't seem to

[Midtowner]

--- I understand it as well as you do -----I just believe that it has limits you don't seem to

Holy hell. I gave you case law and citations for those limitations. Now I don't believe they exist?

[ictsooner7]

He's like the rest of the liberal beggars, he'd rather have a crappy product given to him at someone else's expense, rather than have the top of the line product that he had to work his *** off to earn. The guy runs his big mouth about everyone's right to "FREE" healthcare, yet he doesn't offer any type of benefits package to his two employees because he "can't afford it". He is covered under his wife's employers healthcare. The guy makes his wife pay for HIS healthcare. Typical liberal BUM!! Go ahead Mid, you can now post your resume in response.

As usual your ignorance and stupidity is showing. He is not saying he want a crappy product for free, isn’t he one of the hero small business entrepreneur job creators? Only as long as he is a republican huh? He is not “forcing his wife to pay for his healthcare”. It is a choice. It is not being “given to him at someone else’s expense”, THEY have to pay for it. I get health care through my wife because she has better coverage at a lower price than my company offers. I understand his argument; it’s kinda like Tennessee republican Bob Corker’s firm using illegal aliens as workers, what about he companies he was cheating by hiring illegal’s thereby lowering his costs? Same thing here, his competition doesn’t pay for health insurance and by providing health insurance to his employees it makes him non-competitive.

[Dale Ellis]

This is kind of what every thread boils down to. Red and Dale are exposed and then start to resort to personal attacks. Red lacks even basic constitutional knowledge and shows it by asking dumb questions which he wouldn't ask if he had a fundamental understanding of the issues. Dale just takes things out of context and refuses to acknowledge things I've said multiple times. Par for the course. I appreciate intelligent discourse with posters like SCOUT who is capable agreeing to disagree without resorting to histrionics and name calling.

I exposed you for the hypocrite you are and now you're all butt hurt about it. Tell us all why you don't provide for your employees what you demand others provide for theirs? Tell us all why you let your wife pay for your healthcare when you already acknowledged you make enough money to pay for your own. I can't argue facts with you because you are intellecutally dishonest. IE your reference to the interstate trade commerce clause in the constitution.

No where does the constitution give the government the authority to tell a private business how and where and how much of their profit they are to invest. I've asked you two times to provide that information which you "claim" is in the constitution and to date you still have not.

[Dale Ellis]

As usual your ignorance and stupidity is showing. He is not saying he want a crappy product for free, isn’t he one of the hero small business entrepreneur job creators? Only as long as he is a republican huh? He is not “forcing his wife to pay for his healthcare”. It is a choice. It is not being “given to him at someone else’s expense”, THEY have to pay for it. I get health care through my wife because she has better coverage at a lower price than my company offers. I understand his argument; it’s kinda like Tennessee republican Bob Corker’s firm using illegal aliens as workers, what about he companies he was cheating by hiring illegal’s thereby lowering his costs? Same thing here, his competition doesn’t pay for health insurance and by providing health insurance to his employees it makes him non-competitive.

He said he will only provide coverage for his employees if the government "forces" him to. And if you don't think people like him, who are on his spouses employers healthcare plan don't drive up the cost for others who purchase their own plan, you're a bigger idiot than you've already proven yourself to be.

[Dale Ellis]

There are some good posters on here that I enjoy the banter with. PPhil and Okie52 and a host of others. I have learned from many of their posts and appreciate the respect they give and receive.The ones that right up front profess to hate liberals or other groups and paint everyone with their stereotypes is hard to suffer. I think we have seen many of these posters under other names.

I never said I hate all liberals, I said I hate the action of liberals and the mindsets of liberal like Mid, who think taking 15 hours of constitutional law somehow makes him an authority. Somewhere in the world is the worst attorney, as of right now, my moneys on Mid.

[Midtowner]

I exposed you for the hypocrite you are and now you're all butt hurt about it. Tell us all why you don't provide for your employees what you demand others provide for theirs? Tell us all why you let your wife pay for your healthcare when you already acknowledged you make enough money to pay for your own. I can't argue facts with you because you are intellecutally dishonest. IE your reference to the interstate trade commerce clause in the constitution.

You haven't offered any facts pertinent to your argument.


No where does the constitution give the government the authority to tell a private business how and where and how much of their profit they are to invest. I've asked you two times to provide that information which you "claim" is in the constitution and to date you still have not.

How and where and how much profit is invested by a private business is definitely part of interstate commerce, which according to the Constitution, the feds regulate. As to how the current law suit goes, I predict the ACA will pass muster, but I don't know for sure. Arguing absolutes without any case law on point is pretty much quintessentially talking out of your az.

[Dale Ellis]

You haven't offered any facts pertinent to your argument.



How and where and how much profit is invested by a private business is definitely part of interstate commerce, which according to the Constitution, the feds regulate. As to how the current law suit goes, I predict the ACA will pass muster, but I don't know for sure. Arguing absolutes without any case law on point is pretty much quintessentially talking out of your az.

Show me where in the constitution it states that YOU, Mid a small private business owner must reinvest 80% of your profit into what basically equates to you providing free legal counsel. Give me the wording within the constitution that states that.

[Midtowner]

Show me where in the constitution it states that YOU, Mid a small private business owner must reinvest 80% of your profit into what basically equates to you providing free legal counsel. Give me the wording within the constitution that states that.

How I reinvest my revenue is going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The feds' power to regulate interstate commerce probably allows it to do exactly that. It's all under Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

[Dale Ellis]

How I reinvest my revenue is going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The feds' power to regulate interstate commerce probably allows it to do exactly that. It's all under Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
What do you mean "how I invest" I thought the government had the authority to tell you how to invest, and how much to invest?

[Dale Ellis]

Dude, you can't out logic or argue me. I think maybe I should have been the attorney and you should have stuck with "may I take your order sir".

[Midtowner]

What do you mean "how I invest" I thought the government had the authority to tell you how to invest, and how much to invest?

It may. You just have to wait and see how we come out on the decision regarding the ACA.

[Midtowner]

Dude, you can't out logic or argue me. I think maybe I should have been the attorney and you should have stuck with "may I take your order sir".

Yeah, you're a regular Cicero over there.

[East Coast Bias]

I never said I hate all liberals, I said I hate the action of liberals and the mindsets of liberal like Mid, who think taking 15 hours of constitutional law somehow makes him an authority. Somewhere in the world is the worst attorney, as of right now, my moneys on Mid.

Look,you can say what you want after the fact, but it took me all of 5 minutes to find this from 12/15. Again, let me rinse and repeat, heavy on the rinse. The power of any argument you put forward evaporates when you abandon logic and reason and make personal attack your focus. And yes, I still am hopeful you can rise above this. Here it is in your own words:


I would rather pay a much higher premium and purchase my own coverage rather than allow the guvment to run the show. We all know what the left's end goal is, a single payer, guvment run system. I should be allowed to have the option to purchase my own plan and pay whatever the hell I want to for it, no matter how much it is. But we can't do that, because that would mean less government control, and the left simply wont allow that. I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do. (Dale Ellis-12/15/2011)

Please admit here in front of God and all your other friends that you were wrong and you did say you hate liberals? There of course are other examples, but i can't waste anymore time with the whole cut and paste thing...

[Caboose]

Look,you can say what you want after the fact, but it took me all of 5 minutes to find this from 12/15. Again, let me rinse and repeat, heavy on the rinse. The power of any argument you put forward evaporates when you abandon logic and reason and make personal attack your focus. And yes, I still am hopeful you can rise above this. Here it is in your own words:


I would rather pay a much higher premium and purchase my own coverage rather than allow the guvment to run the show. We all know what the left's end goal is, a single payer, guvment run system. I should be allowed to have the option to purchase my own plan and pay whatever the hell I want to for it, no matter how much it is. But we can't do that, because that would mean less government control, and the left simply wont allow that. I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do. (Dale Ellis-12/15/2011)

Please admit here in front of God and all your other friends that you were wrong and you did say you hate liberals? There of course are other examples, but i can't waste anymore time with the whole cut and paste thing...

Well... technically he disnt say he hated [all] liberals... did he?

[East Coast Bias]

I am pretty sure he hates me, Mid ,Diver (a self-described red-neck liberal) and a few others here.I am used to it, my family has asked me to leave the country several times. I just don't see what it adds to the argument?

[Caboose]

I am pretty sure he hates me, Mid ,Diver (a self-described red-neck liberal) and a few others here.I am used to it, my family has asked me to leave the country several times. I just don't see what it adds to the argument?

No more or less than you claiming he said something that he apparently didnt.

[Midtowner]

No more or less than you claiming he said something that he apparently didnt.

What kind of liberal is not left-wing?

[Caboose]

What kind of liberal is not left-wing?


I hate left wing liberals who think they no better what to do with my money than I do.

Try again, dip****.

[Midtowner]

Try again, dip****.

Who think they "no"? LOL.

That says it all.

[Caboose]

Who think they "no"? LOL.

That says it all.

Says all of what? That despite his spelling or lazy typing you were wrong, yet again?

The only thing that says it all in this thread is that when it was proposed that we improve healthcare within a framework of individual liberty your answer was a flat "No thanks".

You have made it abundantly clear what your intent is.

[SCOUT]

This is kind of what every thread boils down to. Red and Dale are exposed and then start to resort to personal attacks. Red lacks even basic constitutional knowledge and shows it by asking dumb questions which he wouldn't ask if he had a fundamental understanding of the issues. Dale just takes things out of context and refuses to acknowledge things I've said multiple times. Par for the course. I appreciate intelligent discourse with posters like SCOUT who is capable agreeing to disagree without resorting to histrionics and name calling.
You give me way too much credit, jackass. And I try not to resort to histrionics because history was never a strong subject for me.

I would insert a smiley, but...well you know why.

[SCOUT]

How I reinvest my revenue is going to have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The feds' power to regulate interstate commerce probably allows it to do exactly that. It's all under Art. 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Mid, you have to see how this line of thinking is concerning. I understand where you are coming from with the impact on interstate commerce, but surely you see the risk of expansion this has. How you reinvest your revenue (alternately stated as earnings) can be regulated? That is beyond the intent of the original writing and I don't think that is a stretch. I would even go so far as to say that I think it is in direct conflict with their ideas.

[East Coast Bias]

No more or less than you claiming he said something that he apparently didnt.
If you are going to be Dale's spin man, you are going to be busy. Go back and look at what I claimed he said. I did not say he"hated all liberals". I said he professed to hate liberals. His quote is right there to look at. He claims that he opposes the liberal mindset and policies but this quote and others point to more. I am sure he doesn't hate all liberals, I am sure he knows a few and maybe even is best friends with one?

[Caboose]

If you are going to be Dale's spin man, you are going to be busy. Go back and look at what I claimed he said. I did not say he"hated all liberals". I said he professed to hate liberals. His quote is right there to look at. He claims that he opposes the liberal mindset and policies but this quote and others point to more. I am sure he doesn't hate all liberals, I am sure he knows a few and maybe even is best friends with one?

Your response was to disprove his comment of:


I never said I hate all liberals,

[Midtowner]

Mid, you have to see how this line of thinking is concerning. I understand where you are coming from with the impact on interstate commerce, but surely you see the risk of expansion this has. How you reinvest your revenue (alternately stated as earnings) can be regulated? That is beyond the intent of the original writing and I don't think that is a stretch. I would even go so far as to say that I think it is in direct conflict with their ideas.

Sure I can see how it's concerning. I just don't see how it's unconstitutional. You can't just say something is unconstitutional because you don't like it. As applied in this case, I'm not concerned in the least. The health insurance companies are being handed millions, maybe billions of dollars on a silver platter. The law only works if they don't have the power to just jack up their rates on a captive customer base. As noted before, the 80/20 caps make it very difficult for new competitors to enter the marketplace, so if we're stuck with what we've got, we need to make sure that both sides of the ACA get some benefit from the grand bargain.

[East Coast Bias]

Your response was to disprove his comment of:
That was his response to my allegation that he professes to hate liberals. I stand by that assertion and point to his quote for my proof. I did not attempt to prove he hates "all liberals". He could end all this right now and come on here and state he doesn't hate liberals, just their policies. But that of course would be different than what he has said here in the past.