I see your point in the difference but what about another necessity like food for example? Even with food stamps and charities people still go hungry in America. Why isn't there a push for a single payer supermarket? Everyone should pay the same for a head of cabbage, right?
Food is not a good that requires insurance. Everyone knows that they will need a more or less constant supply of food. In contrast to medical care where everyone knows that they have no clue when a massive bankrupting cost will fall on them out of the heavens. This is only one of the massive number of differences between food and medical care which is fundamental to their nature, the others of which were laid out in the post you were quoting.
The short answer is that the majority of starvation deaths in the United States, if any significant number exist[it does not make any report that i can find, which puts its total rate at a necessary number under 1.2% of deaths] do not come from a lack of access to foo, but from other extenuating circumstances such as negligence and malice, things that would not go away in a single payer food system.
If a single payer food system could save any lives in the United States i would be surprised, and the necessary infrastructure required to make such a system work would be less efficient than the system that we have in place today.
Australia Post delivers to pretty much everywhere in Australia, though. Some anecdotes from that wiki page:
The longest air service delivers to remote communities in the outback covering 1,790 km (1,112 mi) over two days.
The most isolated postbox is located on a dive platform on the Great Barrier Reef.
The most isolated Post Office is located 217 km (135 mi) from Onslow in Western Australia, 32 km (20 mi) from the nearest customer.
I wouldn't say there's a huge difference between the US and Australia in this regard.
The difference is not in the amount of space covered, its in the volume of material that gets sent there. Australia does relatively less in its large amount of space than the U.S. does, because the United States is much less dense than Australia.
Food is not a good that requires insurance. Everyone knows that they will need a more or less constant supply of food. In contrast to medical care where everyone knows that they have no clue when a massive bankrupting cost will fall on them out of the heavens. This is only one of the massive number of differences between food and medical care which is fundamental to their nature, the others of which were laid out in the post you were quoting.
Amusingly, how much does the government spend on subsidies to farmers? It seems to me we basically do have a "public option" for at least the corn industry.
Dude, the right is fearmongering and spreading disinformation. I can understand why the Obarry administration would want to stomp on those fires.
And, really, what is it with attempting to discredit legislation by attacking individuals? I'd bang Pelosi but i certainly wouldn't vote for her. What she did or didn't say during the Bush administration is irrelevant.
Dude, the right is fearmongering and spreading disinformation. I can understand why the Obarry administration would want to stomp on those fires.
And, really, what is it with attempting to discredit legislation by attacking individuals? I'd bang Pelosi but i certainly wouldn't vote for her. What she did or didn't say during the Bush administration is irrelevant.
Its not about the legislation. Its about the next election and the Republicans regaining power, it always is. They aren't interested in governing, just winning elections.
Food is not a good that requires insurance. Everyone knows that they will need a more or less constant supply of food. In contrast to medical care where everyone knows that they have no clue when a massive bankrupting cost will fall on them out of the heavens. This is only one of the massive number of differences between food and medical care which is fundamental to their nature, the others of which were laid out in the post you were quoting.
Amusingly, how much does the government spend on subsidies to farmers? It seems to me we basically do have a "public option" for at least the corn industry.
Wouldn't food stamp not only be a public option, but a single payer option?
Dude, the right is fearmongering and spreading disinformation. I can understand why the Obarry administration would want to stomp on those fires.
And, really, what is it with attempting to discredit legislation by attacking individuals? I'd bang Pelosi but i certainly wouldn't vote for her. What she did or didn't say during the Bush administration is irrelevant.
Its not about the legislation. Its about the next election and the Republicans regaining power, it always is. They aren't interested in governing, just winning elections.
Oh god... HR3400 is the worst bill I've ever looked at. Only slight exaggeration.
None of the mechanisms in it are different than the usual Republican proposals for ANY bill, and none of them have been shown to be particularly effective in this instance. Where in the bill are the proposals for things that are KNOWN to work?
In the end, I have to say that's why I hate Republicans (note that I don't hate classical conservatives), they have a "one-size-fits-all" answer for everything. The world isn't that simple.
I see your point in the difference but what about another necessity like food for example? Even with food stamps and charities people still go hungry in America. Why isn't there a push for a single payer supermarket? Everyone should pay the same for a head of cabbage, right?
Food is not a good that requires insurance. Everyone knows that they will need a more or less constant supply of food. In contrast to medical care where everyone knows that they have no clue when a massive bankrupting cost will fall on them out of the heavens. This is only one of the massive number of differences between food and medical care which is fundamental to their nature, the others of which were laid out in the post you were quoting.
The short answer is that the majority of starvation deaths in the United States, if any significant number exist[it does not make any report that i can find, which puts its total rate at a necessary number under 1.2% of deaths] do not come from a lack of access to foo, but from other extenuating circumstances such as negligence and malice, things that would not go away in a single payer food system.
If a single payer food system could save any lives in the United States i would be surprised, and the necessary infrastructure required to make such a system work would be less efficient than the system that we have in place today.
Quoting this in a vain hope that gig will at least read it.
Oh god... HR3400 is the worst bill I've ever looked at. Only slight exaggeration.
None of the mechanisms in it are different than the usual Republican proposals for ANY bill, and none of them have been shown to be particularly effective in this instance. Where in the bill are the proposals for things that are KNOWN to work?
In the end, I have to say that's why I hate Republicans (note that I don't hate classical conservatives), they have a "one-size-fits-all" answer for everything. The world isn't that simple.
Empiricism, accumulated experience, using the tried and tested, using careful, reality-based approaches to problem-solving rather than trying to fit reality around your idealism...
Those are conservative principles. Why would you expect anything of the sort from the republican party, which only survives in a society that allows people to say that up is down - as long as they say it with gusto?
So you agree that insurance companies are not gouging their customers?
Insurance companies need oversight. Do you agree that President Obama is looking to others to blame for his poor leadership? It's ok to say yes.
That's not what I asked.
Do you, or do you not, think insurance companies are gouging their customers? You said you agreed with the article, and the article says they are not. I'm not answering any of your loaded questions until you answer this. And no, mine isn't loaded, as it's based directly on a statement made in the article you're saying is so great. So kindly answer whether or not you agree with what this oh so wonderful article says.
Insurance companies need oversight. Do you agree that President Obama is looking to others to blame for his poor leadership? It's ok to say yes.
I would agree that Obama and the rest of the Democratic leadership are handling the attacks very poorly. They should be staying on message and not letting themselves get drawn into the gutterfights.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
You realize that's quite cheap, yeah? The "Steal the Swiss Plan" guy posted a link to what they (the Swiss) pay, and it's like twice that for single coverage.
You're opposed to anything that doesn't control cost.
The point of the public plan is that it controls costs.
But you're opposed to the public plan.
Why?
.....Because Medicare is bad? (compared to what?)
In all of the two pages you have been asserting that you have a detailed argument somewhere in your post history, you could have spent one post to restate it.
I don't think you have one. I think you are simply nitpicking ad-hoc based on principles like "cost control" that you don't actually give a shit about.
You must be daft. I linked back to my post on the 8 points, which specifically stated I supported the end of rescision -- which is clearly not a cost saving reform.
I also posted that I believe cost control comes first, not that it is the only reform needed.
I also posted that a public plan, by itself, does not address the cost of care, but only how far the cost is spread around.
I posted that Medicare under-reimburses for the cost of services, and that expanding the pool of patients paid under that or similar programs without cost-controls will impact services at hospitals and clinics.
I've said all of this in the last few pages and in the link I provided.
Seriously dude, no. I'm not engaging in your argument about slavery and stoning.
I suspect for the same reason that you're not honestly engaging in the health care argument. Because you don't actually have a position you can defend.[/QUOTE]
You're a fucking asshole. Mod, infract me if you want, but I'm tired of this guy insinuating that my religious beliefs require me to publicly state I'm against slavery and murder.
I know how hard it is to be dog-piled upon these boards, especially if you have an unpopular point of view. One of the effects is, as you notice, that you have to post information and your statements over and over again. Write them down in a text file, save it, and whenever you're asked for these points you can post them quickly without much effort. As somebody who's really interested in this debate here and on the American national level (for my own selfish reasons), I'd hate to see it deteriorating into a 'Yes!' and 'No!' shouting (or more than it is now). So save your more important arguments in a text file, and use it to answer questions you'll be asked time again and again.
and be prepared for your opponents doing the same with counterarguments
I work on a roaming network. My computer changes often. But you do have a point.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
You realize that's quite cheap, yeah? The "Steal the Swiss Plan" guy posted a link to what they (the Swiss) pay, and it's like twice that for single coverage.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
You realize that's quite cheap, yeah? The "Steal the Swiss Plan" guy posted a link to what they (the Swiss) pay, and it's like twice that for single coverage.
For bare minimum coverage?
Certainly not, but minimum coverage (and what does that even mean for health insurance? for car insurance it means the minimum required by the state) for 1/4 of the price doesn't seem like gouging without a lot more details.
The article really says Insurance companies aren't gouging their customers? Really now??
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
You realize that's quite cheap, yeah? The "Steal the Swiss Plan" guy posted a link to what they (the Swiss) pay, and it's like twice that for single coverage.
For bare minimum coverage?
Certainly not, but minimum coverage (and what does that even mean for health insurance? for car insurance it means the minimum required by the state) for 1/4 of the price doesn't seem like gouging without a lot more details.
I still have to pay for just about everything. Doctor's visits, allergy shots, meds, x-rays, etc. Minimum basically means if I go to the ER they will pay 80% and I pay 20%.
I also posted that I believe cost control comes first, not that it is the only reform needed.
I also posted that a public plan, by itself, does not address the cost of care, but only how far the cost is spread around.
There's a lot to talk about here, but a fair starting point would be that a public plan, by itself, obviously *does* address the cost of care.
It so obviously does (I mean, that's how it works) that I think you probably need to elaborate on your points here. Medicare drives costs down. You called that 'under-reimbursement', but that's just another word for cost controls.
Posts
Food is not a good that requires insurance. Everyone knows that they will need a more or less constant supply of food. In contrast to medical care where everyone knows that they have no clue when a massive bankrupting cost will fall on them out of the heavens. This is only one of the massive number of differences between food and medical care which is fundamental to their nature, the others of which were laid out in the post you were quoting.
The short answer is that the majority of starvation deaths in the United States, if any significant number exist[it does not make any report that i can find, which puts its total rate at a necessary number under 1.2% of deaths] do not come from a lack of access to foo, but from other extenuating circumstances such as negligence and malice, things that would not go away in a single payer food system.
If a single payer food system could save any lives in the United States i would be surprised, and the necessary infrastructure required to make such a system work would be less efficient than the system that we have in place today.
The difference is not in the amount of space covered, its in the volume of material that gets sent there. Australia does relatively less in its large amount of space than the U.S. does, because the United States is much less dense than Australia.
Only because you like killing poor, innocent babies.
Amusingly, how much does the government spend on subsidies to farmers? It seems to me we basically do have a "public option" for at least the corn industry.
Obama Snares Palin, Media in Wide Blame-Game Net: Caroline Baum
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aNjLN73fQVj8
Dude, the right is fearmongering and spreading disinformation. I can understand why the Obarry administration would want to stomp on those fires.
And, really, what is it with attempting to discredit legislation by attacking individuals? I'd bang Pelosi but i certainly wouldn't vote for her. What she did or didn't say during the Bush administration is irrelevant.
Its not about the legislation. Its about the next election and the Republicans regaining power, it always is. They aren't interested in governing, just winning elections.
DeMint admits its about "Obama's Waterloo"
Well that and "freedom solutions."
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
it's an issue because Republicans on the committees writing the legislation has started repeating the meme
Wouldn't food stamp not only be a public option, but a single payer option?
Abba's Waterloo?
aka lying.
Deservedly so too.
None of the mechanisms in it are different than the usual Republican proposals for ANY bill, and none of them have been shown to be particularly effective in this instance. Where in the bill are the proposals for things that are KNOWN to work?
In the end, I have to say that's why I hate Republicans (note that I don't hate classical conservatives), they have a "one-size-fits-all" answer for everything. The world isn't that simple.
Quoting this in a vain hope that gig will at least read it.
Insurance companies need oversight. Do you agree that President Obama is looking to others to blame for his poor leadership? It's ok to say yes.
Empiricism, accumulated experience, using the tried and tested, using careful, reality-based approaches to problem-solving rather than trying to fit reality around your idealism...
Those are conservative principles. Why would you expect anything of the sort from the republican party, which only survives in a society that allows people to say that up is down - as long as they say it with gusto?
No. Have you stopped beating your wife?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Do you, or do you not, think insurance companies are gouging their customers? You said you agreed with the article, and the article says they are not. I'm not answering any of your loaded questions until you answer this. And no, mine isn't loaded, as it's based directly on a statement made in the article you're saying is so great. So kindly answer whether or not you agree with what this oh so wonderful article says.
I have minimal coverage and I pay $250 a month for my wife and I. God help me if I actually get something serious.
I have gf and where did I ever say I beat her?
At least your wife has coverage. My gf has none but she doesn't think government should be an option. She did agreed with the John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) op-ed though.
You heard it here first, gigEsmalls cheats on his wife and beats his mistress.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
I have private insurance, since I am only a temp aide at my job (Even though I've been working 40 hours a week for the past two months). She also works part time. If the government health insurance were available, and cheaper, I would jump on that so fast. I don't see why it would effect you if they offered it.
Man, it's been 10 minutes and there are seven posts to read between your question and the end of the thread. How is he supposed to keep up?
You realize that's quite cheap, yeah? The "Steal the Swiss Plan" guy posted a link to what they (the Swiss) pay, and it's like twice that for single coverage.
You must be daft. I linked back to my post on the 8 points, which specifically stated I supported the end of rescision -- which is clearly not a cost saving reform.
I also posted that I believe cost control comes first, not that it is the only reform needed.
I also posted that a public plan, by itself, does not address the cost of care, but only how far the cost is spread around.
I posted that Medicare under-reimburses for the cost of services, and that expanding the pool of patients paid under that or similar programs without cost-controls will impact services at hospitals and clinics.
I've said all of this in the last few pages and in the link I provided.
I suspect for the same reason that you're not honestly engaging in the health care argument. Because you don't actually have a position you can defend.[/QUOTE]
Well you seem like that kind of guy.
I work on a roaming network. My computer changes often. But you do have a point.
For bare minimum coverage?
Certainly not, but minimum coverage (and what does that even mean for health insurance? for car insurance it means the minimum required by the state) for 1/4 of the price doesn't seem like gouging without a lot more details.
I still have to pay for just about everything. Doctor's visits, allergy shots, meds, x-rays, etc. Minimum basically means if I go to the ER they will pay 80% and I pay 20%.
There's a lot to talk about here, but a fair starting point would be that a public plan, by itself, obviously *does* address the cost of care.
It so obviously does (I mean, that's how it works) that I think you probably need to elaborate on your points here. Medicare drives costs down. You called that 'under-reimbursement', but that's just another word for cost controls.