The left is paying for support of Obamas healthcare program(actual proof inside)

[kiff]

I'm just bringing it up to show how your Government regulation dodge a few bullets and how "hands off" just means the little guys get knifed in the back and the big guys get rich.

I don't think anyone is against anti-trust (monopoly) laws. A fair market needs competition.

That's another reason conservatives are calling for interstate insurance. some states are dominated, up to 80%, by one insurance company.

 

[Zxanphorian]

That's another reason conservatives are calling for interstate insurance. some states are dominated, up to 80%, by one insurance company.

But what if the insurance companies don't want to sell across state lines? What if it isn't in their best interest. Who is going to force the private insurance companies to sell across state lines?

 

[Crotale]

But what if the insurance companies don't want to sell across state lines? What if it isn't in their best interest. Who is going to force the private insurance companies to sell across state lines?

The government should never force companies to do business. Judging by your comment, I get the impression you don't know that many insurance providers would love to do business in as many states as possible. Insurance is one of those state-regulated things that if you do not have a corporate office in a state, you cannot conduct business there. There is a reasonable explanation for this: it is done this way to keep fly-by-night companies from taking people's money and then closing up shop without paying out. It also makes it easier for the state to go after these companies in order to protect the state's consumers.

If federal regulation or guidance can provide a method of interstate brokering even for smaller providers who may have the resources to put up a corporate office in each state they want to conduct business in would be a start.

 

[Jacks:Revenge]

And yet others will go for every sniff and sneeze. Touche.

right. you got me.
because sniffles and a cough put as much strain on the system as the guy who doesn't show up until he's on deaths door...

Handing over power to the government all throughout history has generally ended up in failure.

history has also shown us that societies with a weak central government don't last very long.

You made a poor choice of words, admit it.

my use of the word is justified. you made a poor assumption and then tried to back out of it.

Again, you're ignoring all of the government intervention factors. Take that away and reconsider.

those regulatory factors are ever-present.
taking them away and "reconsidering" how things might work out differently is still theory.

The lionshare of most people's medical bills when they have surgery is post-operative care.

so it doesn't count?

It IS indicative of their capability, though. I don't understand how you can disconnect social policy from bad social programs. GOVERNMENT WASTES MONEY etc etc

then move to Antarctica and create your own state of anarchy. ffs.

the fact of the matter is that we have continually allowed government to incur these additional responsibilities, we didn't stop them and now we are where we are. the same phenomenon can be seen in nearly ever industrialized nation, regardless of their original approach to social policy.
these are unusually trying times for any administration. getting hit with a major recession during the midst of a pointless and wasteful military effort doesn't usually help an agenda get its fair shake.

but this is the state of our nation. Obama is not the one who started this trend of expanding the Fed. short of a second revolution (or maybe you can move to Texas and secede with them) there's not much you can do to roll back the powers which the gov't has gained. we voted our way to this moment in time.

Still, I like to keep my money and choose what to spend it on.

good point

If this healthcare bill passes, this is what we get.

right.
and if it breaks again in 30 years another administration will step in with some reforms of their own. and so on and so on.

 

[kiff]

But what if the insurance companies don't want to sell across state lines?

what company wouldn't want to?

What if it isn't in their best interest.

I can't imagine why it wouldn't be, but...

Who is going to force the private insurance companies to sell across state lines?

nobody

 

[Sir_Brizz]

right. you got me.
because sniffles and a cough put as much strain on the system as the guy who doesn't show up until he's on deaths door...

They do, in fact they can put on much more. Emergency Rooms are all the time clogged by people that don't even need to be there.

history has also shown us that societies with a weak central government don't last very long.

Such as...?

so it doesn't count?

I didn't say that, my point was that the cost of actual services is dwarfed by what you pay to the hospital to stay there and be taken care of. It's easier for them to subsidize these costs.

then move to Antarctica and create your own state of anarchy. ffs.

What kind of argument is "move out of the country if you don't like it"? The US was founded on the principles of personal freedom and unity even in disagreement. We shouldn't just show people the door when they don't like things that are going on.

the fact of the matter is that we have continually allowed government to incur these additional responsibilities, we didn't stop them and now we are where we are. the same phenomenon can be seen in nearly ever industrialized nation, regardless of their original approach to social policy.

Again, what kind of argument is this? "It has happened before so just let it continue happening"? That doesn't make any sense! If people don't wake up until the last second, they should STILL let their voice of dissent be heard. If not, then what kind of government do we have?

these are unusually trying times for any administration. getting hit with a major recession during the midst of a pointless and wasteful military effort doesn't usually help an agenda get its fair shake.

And yet Obama's defense spending is even higher than Bush's.... hmmm...... If you expected that the next President wouldn't be a big military man, you are so far completely wrong.

but this is the state of our nation. Obama is not the one who started this trend of expanding the Fed. short of a second revolution (or maybe you can move to Texas and secede with them) there's not much you can do to roll back the powers which the gov't has gained. we voted our way to this moment in time.

I wasn't implying this was all Obama's fault. But we shouldn't just sit idly by and continue letting him grow the federal government, increase federal spending, and throw the future of generations of Americans down the toilet in the name of "economic rescue" or any other cause.

There is no time like the present to take action. If someone was coming to bulldoze your house and you didn't do anything about it until they were at your front door (or, rather, you didn't even know about it till then), would you just say, "Well I've never done anything about it before now, so go ahead!" or would you actually try to stop it? I know what I would do.

good point

You take issue with that statement?

right.
and if it breaks again in 30 years another administration will step in with some reforms of their own. and so on and so on.

Have you seen any Medicare reform in the last 30 years? Social Security? Heck, even post office routines? No? That's because once a program is implemented, the basis of the program has almost no chance of changing (I realize there have been reform programs for many social programs... but have they helped?)

 

[Phopojijo]

I just want to state -- people clogging the emergency rooms with the sniffles:

In Canada -- unless you want to wait like 6-8 hours at the ER... you go to the doctor's office (walk-in or family... private-owned-public-paid or public {or fully private but... yeah... they're very rare and in some Provinces disallowed}) because the emergency room will prioritize just about everyone ahead of you... because they have emergencies. Contrast that to the ~10 minutes - an hour you wait at the doctor's office because there's a luxury of definite order available.

Unless you have a very poor outlook on the general American public's intelligence... which kinda hurts YOUR argument more than it does mine... your point about clogging the ER is pretty moot.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

I just want to state -- people clogging the emergency rooms with the sniffles:

In Canada -- unless you want to wait like 6-8 hours at the ER... you go to the doctor's office (walk-in or family... private-owned-public-paid or public {or fully private but... yeah... they're very rare and in some Provinces disallowed}) because the emergency room will prioritize just about everyone ahead of you... because they have emergencies. Contrast that to the ~10 minutes - an hour you wait at the doctor's office because there's a luxury of definite order available.

Unless you have a very poor outlook on the general American public's intelligence... which kinda hurts YOUR argument more than it does mine... your point about clogging the ER is pretty moot.

I think you just underestimate people. I'm sure there are lots of people in Canada that clog up the ER there too, particularly when regular doctor's offices are closed (late at night or on holidays).

But, frankly, it also hurts the system when people go to the doctor's office for things they don't need to. Here in the states, though, doctors often figure that something is nothing unless you are really dire (at which point you might as well have gone to the ER) to protect themselves against lawsuits... see where this is headed?

 

[kiff]

I don't think many ppl take their kids to the ER if they have a cough/cold. high fever flu, sure...

the point brizz is making is that many ppl DO take their kids to the doc's office anytime they cough or sneeze. When you use your insurance co-pay, you're insulated from the real costs involved. if you paid out of pocket everytime you went, you'd think twice about taking them for a bandaid

 

[kiff]

Here in the states, though, doctors often figure that something is nothing unless you are really dire (at which point you might as well have gone to the ER) to protect themselves against lawsuits... see where this is headed?

TR


I'm interested to see what Obama says on Wednesday
if he really wants to get **** done, and not be a partisan fool, he'll throw in the possibility of tort reform. I really doubt that tho, since trial lawyers are huge dem lobbyists.

If he doesn't come out with a clear plan, he's screwed. If he drops the public option, he'll lose the far left, but if he doesn't then he'll continue to lose even more (of the majority of americans)

 

[Phopojijo]

Well at the same token, even those dumb-as-a-brick/inconsiderate of others are going to go to the lesser line if they know it exists... because they know that they'll have people cut in front in line left/right/center.

There are also a LOT of 24/7/52/365 + 1 every leap year Doctors Offices in Canada -- but of course not everywhere.

Also if you have something that really can't wait until the morning, it might in fact be an emergency anyway.

-- I agree with the medical Lawsuit issue... and frankly I'd believe that a lot of the formality of medical lawsuits is just one big money-sink.

Tax-free, smaller payments and less-formal investigations into incidents (with possibility of appeal of course) could be a very less-costly method to help promote small business doctors ability to succeed -- and also intermingle better with possible Government-owned offices should the need be available.

I don't think many ppl take their kids to the ER if they have a cough/cold. high fever flu, sure...

the point brizz is making is that many ppl DO take their kids to the doc's office anytime they cough or sneeze. When you use your insurance co-pay, you're insulated from the real costs involved. if you paid out of pocket everytime you went, you'd think twice about taking them for a bandaid

At the same token, you want to promote people going to the doctor's office...

I'll bring up the issue with Ashlee and her "semi-frequent nosebleeds" turning out to be Paranasal Sinus Cancer that she caught early, had better odds of recovering from, and costed less than a huge malignant tumour had she NOT seen the doctor in both excess doctor's fees and loss of productivity.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Well at the same token, even those dumb-as-a-brick/inconsiderate of others are going to go to the lesser line if they know it exists... because they know that they'll have people cut in front in line left/right/center.

You're right, people will go where they know they can get in.

There are also a LOT of 24/7/52/365 + 1 every leap year Doctors Offices in Canada -- but of course not everywhere.

Around here there are "late night" offices (to like 10PM) but between that and 9:00 am, you are going to the ER.

Also if you have something that really can't wait until the morning, it might in fact be an emergency anyway.

Right, if it REALLY can't wait

At the same token, you want to promote people going to the doctor's office...

I'll bring up the issue with Ashlee and her "semi-frequent nosebleeds" turning out to be Paranasal Sinus Cancer that she caught early, had better odds of recovering from, and costed less than a huge malignant tumour had she NOT seen the doctor in both excess doctor's fees and loss of productivity.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with preventive care, I just think that people are too insulated from the cost of dropping by the doctor's office on any occasion. Even if people had to pay costs up front and get reimbursed, I think it would do a lot to stave off over-visitation.

 

[Phopojijo]

Ehhh... you want a balance right? You want the people who need help there as early as possible, and you want the hypochondriacs to just take a goddamn Tylonol and sleep it off.

I think you can tell we're on opposing sides of the balance... but meh.

 

[kiff]

I'll bring up the issue with Ashlee and her "semi-frequent nosebleeds" turning out to be Paranasal Sinus Cancer that she caught early, had better odds of recovering from, and costed less than a huge malignant tumour had she NOT seen the doctor in both excess doctor's fees and loss of productivity.

Of course if someone has a chronic case like that you'd take them. I, like brizz, am just saying that the way co-pays are now, everyone goes everytime their farts are stinky, and they have zero accountability for the costs

 

[dragonfliet]

That's another reason conservatives are calling for interstate insurance. some states are dominated, up to 80%, by one insurance company.

Coming from the person who's all rah rah STATE'S RIGHTS!

Insurance is one of those state-regulated things that if you do not have a corporate office in a state, you cannot conduct business there. There is a reasonable explanation for this: it is done this way to keep fly-by-night companies from taking people's money and then closing up shop without paying out. It also makes it easier for the state to go after these companies in order to protect the state's consumers.

Actually, here's a REAL reason: it is because the states want to get as much money as they can by inflating the jobs in the state. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (jobs are good!) but the positions are needed and are an absolute waste of money, jacking up costs for the insurance companies and costs to consumers while severely limiting competition.

Of course, having a nationally regulated system instead of stupid ass states invoking insanely byzantine laws would be terrible. Ask Brizz and Kiff, it would be Tyranny!

Don't mind my heavy handed sarcasm, folks, it's late and this thread is hilarious. You ever notice how many people online are constitutional scholars? Apparently having no legal training and a wiki understanding of the document in question is the highest authority.



~Jason

 

[hal]

Jacks, Brizz already addressed your other weak arguments, so let me just harp on your poor use of ethnocentrism.

Unless you want to argue that the entire population of the US qualifies as a single ethnic group, then you've got no leg to stand on. Nevermind the fact that the principles I talked about are part of the governmental system we all share as a nation - not an ethnic group. Please don't even try to bring up again the silly notion that the word ethnocentric has nothing to do with ethnicity. Go look it up if you remain confused.

 

[dragonfliet]

Unless you want to argue that the entire population of the US qualifies as a single ethnic group, then you've got no leg to stand on. Nevermind the fact that the principles I talked about are part of the governmental system we all share as a nation - not an ethnic group. Please don't even try to bring up again the silly notion that the word ethnocentric has nothing to do with ethnicity. Go look it up if you remain confused.

What he said, only with some advice. In the future, the word you were looking for is: jingoistic. It's a good word, I recommend it.

~Jason

 

[Wail of Suicide]

Don't mind my heavy handed sarcasm, folks, it's late and this thread is hilarious. You ever notice how many people online are constitutional scholars? Apparently having no legal training and a wiki understanding of the document in question is the highest authority.

~Jason

Yeah, it's a bit ridiculous to think that a government [presumably] established by will of "the people" could actually be understood by "the people."

 

[Crotale]

Actually, here's a REAL reason: it is because the states want to get as much money as they can by inflating the jobs in the state. This isn't necessarily a bad thing (jobs are good!) but the positions are needed and are an absolute waste of money, jacking up costs for the insurance companies and costs to consumers while severely limiting competition.

Of course, having a nationally regulated system instead of stupid ass states invoking insanely byzantine laws would be terrible. Ask Brizz and Kiff, it would be Tyranny!

Don't mind my heavy handed sarcasm, folks, it's late and this thread is hilarious. You ever notice how many people online are constitutional scholars? Apparently having no legal training and a wiki understanding of the document in question is the highest authority.



~Jason

This isn't about anyone being a "constitutional scholar" but about some of us actually believing in the Constitution in its entirety, not just when it conveniently suits our purposes or when our ideals happen to align with it.

Your disdain for states rights is appalling and unfounded. It is also dangerous. I know it is difficult for someone like yourself to fathom that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to always being adding freedoms that weren't thought of previously and at the same time not taking away from the freedoms of others while doing it.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Of course, having a nationally regulated system instead of stupid ass states invoking insanely byzantine laws would be terrible. Ask Brizz and Kiff, it would be Tyranny!

This has nothing to do with it. Regulation of INTERSTATE business operations IS a function of the federal government. Wholesale control of ALL business operations is not (for example, it's unlikely someone is going to receive healthcare service from a hospital in another state without actually going there).