Yeah, yeah, we all knew he was going to do it, but it's news (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071003/bush-children-s-health/).

This is legislation that passed both houses of Congress, so Bush is really going it alone by standing in the way of getting necessary health care to children in need.

What do you think? Is Bush right or wrong? Should we, as a society, make sure that poor, sick children can get the health care they need, or should we take the attitude the Prat exemplifies in the quote in my signature below?

.

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/healthcare_2.jpg

Or maybe we should leave it up to States to manage comprehensive children's health programs for their residents... like we do in Texas.

http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/index.html

Why must everything (in your mind) be done by the Feds? So it can cost more and be less efficient?

Or maybe we should leave it up to States to manage comprehensive children's health programs for their residents... like we do in Texas.

SMW...
This has nothing to do with the federal government "managing" the states' chip programs.

If you look at the link you posted, and click on "Chip reports and publications" (http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/chip_pubs.asp),
Then click on the last Annual Report (http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/chip/reports/2000AnnRpt.pdf) they posted, which is from 2001. Scroll down to page 32, Appendix A, The Budget.

You will notice that they have three sources of revenue for the Texas Chip program. Projected out to 2003.

1. Cost Sharing Receipts - $16 Million
2. Tobacco Receipts - $202 Million
3. Federal Funds - $484 Million

Yes, SMW, your "state" program gets the majority of its funding from the Federal Government.

The Bill that George W. Bush vetoed (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:9:./temp/~c110rriqqm::), simply made more federal money available to the states various Chip programs. Including your state of Texas.

:thumbs:
DB

You're right, Dharma. My bad for not studying up on who funds the CHIPS program. However, the president's reasons for vetoing the bill seem reasonable to me.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Why should the govt pay for a health care plan for children who are already covered by private insurance??

;)
SMW

"[I]Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

The bill in question has nothing to do with the government "running the health care system." It is about funding, not managing.



The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly,

Oh, the irony.


Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Those are the important points, IMO.



Why should the govt pay for a health care plan for children who are already covered by private insurance??

They aren't.


The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.


:thumbs:
DB

Guess all we really need to do is wait until Hillary gets into office. Then we'll ALL get that free insurance. Wonder if she'll include our dogs as well?

Nah, gotta save some promise for 2012.

;)
SMW

bush is getting some religion on spending, at last. Unfortunately too little, too late and on the wrong issue.

Guess all we really need to do is wait until Hillary gets into office. Then we'll ALL get that free insurance.

Do you really believe that Hillary is promising "free" health care?

If so I would love to know where you get these absurd beliefs.

.

It isnt going to be free.... me and you are going to foot the bill... bad enough we feed and cloth most of the lazy people in this country.. why not send them to the doctor.

Well said.


You're right, Dharma. My bad for not studying up on who funds the CHIPS program. However, the president's reasons for vetoing the bill seem reasonable to me.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "Secondly, I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

But he seemed eager to avert a full-scale showdown over the difficult issue, offering that he is "more than willing" to negotiate with lawmakers "if they need a little more money in the bill to help us meet the objective of getting help for poor children."

The program is a joint state-federal effort that subsidizes health coverage for 6.6 million people, mostly children, from families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford their own private coverage.

The Democrats who control Congress, with significant support from Republicans, passed the legislation to add $35 billion over five years to allow an additional 4 million children into the program. It would be funded by raising the federal cigarette tax by 61 cents to $1 per pack.

The president argued that the Democratic bill was too costly, took the program too far beyond its original intent of helping the poor, and would entice people now covered in the private sector to switch to government coverage. He has proposed only a $5 billion increase in funding.

Democrats deny Bush's charge that their plan is a move toward socialized medicine that short-changes the poor, saying their goal is to cover more of the millions of uninsured children and noting that the bill provides financial incentives for states to cover their lowest-income children first. Of the over 43 million people nationwide who lack health insurance, over 6 million are under 18 years old. That's over 9 percent of all children.

Why should the govt pay for a health care plan for children who are already covered by private insurance??

;)
SMW

IT'S About time President Bush Started acting Like A Conservative Since when was a 25 year old a Child? Just Think A couple Of 24 Yr olds Have 4 kids And Have an Income of $79.999.00 A Year. All 6 Are covered Because the dimwits want to raise the age limit To 25 it was a real BAD DEAL that needed to be vetoed :thumbs:

Do you really believe that Hillary is promising "free" health care?

If so I would love to know where you get these absurd beliefs.

.
From Hillary Herself

It isnt going to be free.... me and you are going to foot the bill...

It isn't as if we don't foot the bill now.
As it is, we not only pay for our health care, but we also pay for the billion dollar salaries of the insurance executives.


bad enough we feed and cloth most of the lazy people in this country.. why not send them to the doctor.

We do all that for the "lazy"?
How queer. Here I thought we do it for the poor.

There are some lazy ass people where I work and I had no idea they were getting free food, clothes and health care on top of their salaries.

:rolleyes:

From Hillary Herself

No, you didn't.

.

It isn't as if we don't foot the bill now.
As it is, we not only pay for our health care, but we also pay for the billion dollar salaries of the insurance executives.

Source? Which health insurance execs make a billion dollars in annual salaries? (Damn... I guess I picked the wrong career)

Which health insurance execs make a billion dollars in annual salaries? (Damn... I guess I picked the wrong career)

William McGuire (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=37237)of United Health Care took home more than $1.7 Billion in total compensation for 2005.

That was a "golden parachute" retirement package, not annual salary and compensation (and one that is still being investigated by the IRS also, if I recall correctly). I don't thinkit's fair to paint ALL insurance executives as billionaires.... just like all stock brokers are not inside traders. But I'm not trying to "prove a point" either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire

I don't thinkit's fair to paint ALL insurance executives as billionaires....

Riiiiight, some of them might only be worth a few hundred million...

:rolleyes:

Why do you resent people who make money?

Why can't you just focus on what is yours, and what could be yours?

Stop trying to take what others have.


Riiiiight, some of them might only be worth a few hundred million...

:rolleyes:

Why do you resent people who make money?

Why can't you just focus on what is yours, and what could be yours?

Stop trying to take what others have.

Hence the term bleeding heart

The bill in question has nothing to do with the government "running the health care system." It is about funding, not managing.


Again Bush doesn't know what he's talking about or he is just twisting the issue to try to scare us. People like him always want to turn the issue of "providing health insurance for the poor" into "hospitals run by the gov't and doctors employed by the gov't". Pay attention to the issue Bush.

From Hillary Herself

Could we have link to that?

bush is getting some religion on spending, at last. Unfortunately too little, too late and on the wrong issue.

Well said! It is just amazing how "die hard" the supporters of bush are. Both the House and the Senata approved this bill but he vetoed it. Yet, his supporters will back him on ANYTHING and spin it anyway they can in their own mind to justify that support. It is similar to a religion/cult.

Yes of course, his opponents may also spin stuff in their own mind to always oppose him...i guess.

cant they take it back to the house and override it? If this is so so great and only the president hates it????

Why do you resent people who make money?

Because they are making it off of me!


Why can't you just focus on what is yours, and what could be yours?

That is precisely what I am doing.


Stop trying to take what others have.

They are taking what is mine and I am trying to stop it.

Why do you insist I sit by and let them take what I have???

.

He is a fuckin' loser so this is no surprise.........

He wants all the $$$$ for this stupid pointless war.....

He is a fuckin' loser so this is no surprise.........

He wants all the $$$$ for this stupid pointless war.....
Are you saying it is an Either/Or? Health, or dead Americans?

Because they are making it off of me!



That is precisely what I am doing.



They are taking what is mine and I am trying to stop it.

Why do you insist I sit by and let them take what I have???

.

You do have choices. Don't like it, don't buy it. But don't blame someone else for the results of your choices.

You do have choices. Don't like it, don't buy it. But don't blame someone else for the results of your choices.

That is the most stupid thing I have read today.
Health Care is an issue of life and death.
That is like saying "if you don't like the level of pollution in the air, then don't breathe."

For profit insurance companies are a leech on the back of society sucking billions of dollars out of our economy into the hands of a few and doing it by exploiting the fact that everyone must pay some health care costs just as a natural consequence of living.

John Edwards' health care plan simply gives people the option to buy into a government run health care plan if they choose. It doesn't take anything away except some of the immoral practices like "preexisting conditions".

Why do you resent people who make money?
Because he'll never have any, that's why. He's too stupid.

That was a "golden parachute" retirement package, not annual salary and compensation (and one that is still being investigated by the IRS also, if I recall correctly). I don't thinkit's fair to paint ALL insurance executives as billionaires.... just like all stock brokers are not inside traders. But I'm not trying to "prove a point" either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_W._McGuire

No, they're not all billionaires, but every last one of them is a millionaire many times over, even without the stock options.

I've posted this before; obviously the nay-sayers and the willfully ignorant paid it no mind. The bottom line is, there is simply no way to say that health care costs will go UP if these people's salaries are eliminated from the process. Anyone that disagrees is either a complete idiot or in complete denial.

Do please note that the following info comes from 1996. HMO execs now make FAR more; we know this because (a) health insurance companies have posted huge profits in the past 10 years and (b) health care costs continue to rise in leaps and bounds, with employers paying less and less into the system (employees are increasingly forced to make up the difference).

For a start, we might look at the amount of premium dollars removed from patient care by being paid to executives.

You decide how much room there is for savings.

The 25 Highest Paid HMO Executives 1996 Annual Compensation
Exclusive of Unexercised Stock Options

Stephen Wiggins, CEO, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. - $29,061,599
Wilson Taylor, Chairman and CEO, CIGNA Corporation - $11,568,410
David Snow, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. - $10,403,451
Robert Smoler, Executive VP, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. - $10,085,972
William Sullivan, President, Oxford Health Plans, Inc. - $7,823,076
Joseph Sebastianelli, President, Aetna, Inc. - $7,394,506
Michael Cardillo, Executive Vice President, Aetna, Inc. - $7,069,969
Leonard Schaeffer, Chairman/CEO, WellPoint Health - $7,010,698
George Jochum, President/CEO, Mid-Atlantic Medical - $6,526,065
Ronald Compton, Chairman and CEO, Aetna, Inc. - $5,813,287
Wayne Smith, Former President, Humana, Inc. - $5,166,575
James Stewart, Executive Vice President, CIGNA - $4,832,799
Richard Huber, Vice Chairman, Aetna, Inc. - $4,801,841
Roger Taylor, Executive VP, PacifiCare Health Systems - $4,103,864
Daniel Crowley, CEO/President, Foundation Health Corp. - $3,849,023
Gerald Isom, President, Property/Casualty, CIGNA Corp. - $3,778,293
Alan Hoops, President and CEO, PacifiCare Health - $3,221,602
Daniel Kearney, Executive Vice President, Aetna, Inc - $3,189,272
D. Mark Weinberg, Exec. Vice President, WellPoint Health - $3,009,944
Donald Levinson, Executive Vice President, CIGNA Corp. - $2,985,017
Ronald Williams, Exec. VP, WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. - $2,827,381
Allen Wise, Executive Vice President, United HealthCare - $2,697,751
Jeffrey Elder, Senior Vice President, Foundation Health - $2,235,783
H. Edward Hanway, President CIGNA HealthCare, - $2,217,711
Kirk Benson, President and COO, Foundation Health Corp. - $2,104,414

Totals executive pay, by Company:

Oxford Health Plans, Inc. - $57,374,098
Aetna, Inc - $28,268,875
CIGNA Corporation - $25,382,230
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. - $12,848,023
Foundation Health Corporation - $8,189,220
Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, Inc. - $6,526,065
PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. - $7,325,466
Humana, Inc. - $5,166,575
United HealthCare Corporation - $2,697,751
Cumulative Total - $153,778,303 --HMO Executive Salaries (http://www.harp.org/hmoexecs.htm)

I challenge any/all of you naysayers to explain how universal healthcare, which eliminates the greedy insurance companies and their outrageously overpaid executives from the mix, could possibly cost more than it currently does.

Go on. We'll wait. :rolleyes:

To look at the bigger picture, I think you should include all malpractice settlements and the lawyer's salaries that relate to those. Also include the highest paid specialists in the medical field.

Insurance profits are not the ONLY thing that makes our medical costs so high.

examine also;

Indigent care costs (esp. related to the illegal aliens).

Lack of tort reform in our legal system.

The cost of malpractice insurance that our physicians pay.

The drug companies and their business practices (need a purple pill?)

The number of people that do not take health insurance coverage through their work.

Fraudulent insurance claims by individuals.


Blaming all the problems with our health care system on only the health insurance companies, is like blaming all auto accidents on faulty brakes.

To look at the bigger picture, I think you should include all malpractice settlements and the lawyer's salaries that relate to those. Also include the highest paid specialists in the medical field.

Insurance profits are not the ONLY thing that makes our medical costs so high.

examine also;

Indigent care costs (esp. related to the illegal aliens).

Lack of tort reform in our legal system.

The cost of malpractice insurance that our physicians pay.

The drug companies and their business practices (need a purple pill?)

The number of people that do not take health insurance coverage through their work.

Fraudulent insurance claims by individuals.


Blaming all the problems with our health care system on only the health insurance companies, is like blaming all auto accidents on faulty brakes.

Of course the things you mention are also a part of the problem. I don't believe I've ever stated that the ONLY thing wrong with America's healthcare problems is the profits taken by health insurance companies and Big Pharma. But it's definitely a BIG chunk of the pie. And getting bigger.

Not doing anything is a sure recipe for collapse of our country's health care systems. I'm amazed how resistant some people are to seeing the truth of the situation. It boggles the mind.

That is the most stupid thing I have read today.
Health Care is an issue of life and death.
That is like saying "if you don't like the level of pollution in the air, then don't breathe."

For profit insurance companies are a leech on the back of society sucking billions of dollars out of our economy into the hands of a few and doing it by exploiting the fact that everyone must pay some health care costs just as a natural consequence of living.

John Edwards' health care plan simply gives people the option to buy into a government run health care plan if they choose. It doesn't take anything away except some of the immoral practices like "preexisting conditions".


Sorry buy you are making a decision. No one is forcing you to make the decision. Don't like it don't buy it, it's that simple.
If you don't think you're getting value for money don't buy it or go someplace else.
If it's all the same then that tells you the insurance is reasonably priced. If it were overpriced then a competitor would lower their price and capture market share and increase profits. It's that simple.

(Watch, now he'll insist that the price is fixed, it's a conspiracy among competitors. Not that he can offer any evidence, just his assertion.)

No, they're not all billionaires, but every last one of them is a millionaire many times over, even without the stock options.

I've posted this before; obviously the nay-sayers and the willfully ignorant paid it no mind. The bottom line is, there is simply no way to say that health care costs will go UP if these people's salaries are eliminated from the process. Anyone that disagrees is either a complete idiot or in complete denial.

Do please note that the following info comes from 1996. HMO execs now make FAR more; we know this because (a) health insurance companies have posted huge profits in the past 10 years and (b) health care costs continue to rise in leaps and bounds, with employers paying less and less into the system (employees are increasingly forced to make up the difference).



I challenge any/all of you naysayers to explain how universal healthcare, which eliminates the greedy insurance companies and their outrageously overpaid executives from the mix, could possibly cost more than it currently does.

Go on. We'll wait. :rolleyes:

Your proof is sitting north of the border. In Canada we don't have any greedy heakth insurance companies or their executives. Health care is all paid for by the gov't. And despite the lack of greedy insurance company executives and/or eight and nine figure insurance company settlements the cost of health care in Canada has risen steadily. It used to occupy about 18% of the provincial budget 30 years ago (when i used to pay @$125 annually) to about 44% of the budget currently. (Back in the late '80's the cost of insurance was shifted to employers because the increase to individuals was getting so large. Currently my employer pays about $3000 annually for me.)

So much for that arguement.:rolleyes:

Of course the things you mention are also a part of the problem. I don't believe I've ever stated that the ONLY thing wrong with America's healthcare problems is the profits taken by health insurance companies and Big Pharma. But it's definitely a BIG chunk of the pie. And getting bigger.

Not doing anything is a sure recipe for collapse of our country's health care systems. I'm amazed how resistant some people are to seeing the truth of the situation. It boggles the mind.

Fair enough, not disputing your numbers here. I actually only disputed Dharma's post that ALL insurance exec's made a billion in annual compensation.

I didn't mean to imply that you stated this was the only thing. I was just mentioning several other areas that need to be addressed on this issue.

What I find laughable is that some politicians think immigration reform needs a "comprehensive plan" and health care can be "fixed" with only one or two of the problems addressed.

Your proof is sitting north of the border. In Canada we don't have any greedy heakth insurance companies or their executives. Health care is all paid for by the gov't. And despite the lack of greedy insurance company executives and/or eight and nine figure insurance company settlements the cost of health care in Canada has risen steadily.Health care costs have risen steadily for everyone -- the best we can hope for at this point is to curtail the increases. Single-payer coverage has accomplished this in Canada:

In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #_note-WHO
So much for that arguement.:rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

If you don't think you're getting value for money don't buy it or go someplace else.


That is precisely what I am doing in going to the government to provide my health insurance.

:thumbs:
DB

That is precisely what I am doing in going to the government to provide my health insurance.

:thumbs:
DB


Thats fine. But stop trying to drag the rest of us along your misguided path.

Thats fine. But stop trying to drag the rest of us along your misguided path.

What makes you think I am?

Neither John Edwards nor Hillary's health care plan forces anyone onto a government plan who doesn't want it.

What makes you think I am?

Neither John Edwards nor Hillary's health care plan forces anyone onto a government plan who doesn't want it.


Good, then I, and my company, won't have to pay any of the associated costs, either. Just like government flood insurance.:rolleyes:

Good, then I, and my company, won't have to pay any of the associated costs, either.

You already pay far more for the 47 million uninsured who go into the ER for their primary care.

Chances are that once the government is offering it your company will dump you anyway. Why should they have to pay those costs if they don't have to? They are more competitive if they don't.

:thumbs:
DB

You already pay far more for the 47 million uninsured who go into the ER for their primary care.

Chances are that once the government is offering it your company will dump you anyway. Why should they have to pay those costs if they don't have to? They are more competitive if they don't.

:thumbs:
DB

Since I own the company, dropping my coverage, would be my choice.

Just as soon as Edwards, or Billery can lay out exactly how their program will be funded, and how much I, and/or, my company will have to pay, I'll study their plan. But I'm not buying into any government program blind. I'll continue to oppose any such plan, until convinced it will cost less, and provide, at least, the same level of service I, and my employees, currently enjoy.

Oh, and BTW, paying the cost for 47 million is far cheaper than paying for 300 million.

Why do you resent people who make money?
Because he'll never have any, that's why. He's too stupid.
Are you guys familiar with the concept of a racket?

Oh, and BTW, paying the cost for 47 million is far cheaper than paying for 300 million.

Not when the 47 million are mainly using the Emergency Room as their primary point of care.

:thumbs:

Not when the 47 million are mainly using the Emergency Room as their primary point of care.

:thumbs:


Back that up, with a valid study.

Back that up, with a valid study.

Say please.

:thumbs:

Medicaid only pays the Medicare premiums for those who can not afford to pay it themselves.

These premiums are per person:
Medicare Premiums can be as high as $503.50 per month, for those with little or no work history. Or $319.50 for those with 30-39 Quarters of Medicare covered employment. Or $93.50 per month for those over 65.

Any way you slice it, it going to cost more to cover 300 million people than it does to pay for 47 million.

Health care costs have risen steadily for everyone -- the best we can hope for at this point is to curtail the increases. Single-payer coverage has accomplished this in Canada:

In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared #_note-WHO
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Indeed they have. but having a single payer hasn't prevented costs from rising steadily in Canada. Nor is the rise related to executive compensation costs which is what frannie is arguing.I've posted this before; obviously the nay-sayers and the willfully ignorant paid it no mind. The bottom line is, there is simply no way to say that health care costs will go UP if these people's salaries are eliminated from the process. Anyone that disagrees is either a complete idiot or in complete denial. :thumbs:

That is precisely what I am doing in going to the government to provide my health insurance.

:thumbs:
DB

But thinking that it will be cheaper because it's provided by the gov't is misguided.

An interesting article about health care, costs, and outcomes.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0304.longman.html

I find this discusting. Bush is for the RICH... He's worried middle class children will end up getting on this health insurance. I don't care- all children should have health insurance. Bush really proved he doesn't care enough about childrens health in America. Nobody should have to worry about going into debt for taking their children to the doctor!

Medicaid only pays the Medicare premiums for those who can not afford to pay it themselves.

These premiums are per person:
Medicare Premiums can be as high as $503.50 per month, for those with little or no work history. Or $319.50 for those with 30-39 Quarters of Medicare covered employment. Or $93.50 per month for those over 65.

Any way you slice it, it going to cost more to cover 300 million people than it does to pay for 47 million.
But this recent bill that Bush vetoed had nothing to do with welfare.

Are you guys familiar with the concept of a racket?

Government is the biggest racket there is. Who else could waste billions of dollars and insist they need more? They don't even try to pretend like they are spending wisely.
Anyone who can look at the current state of the US government and say they would do a good job running anything, let alone a massive project like national health care is a complete fool.

But this recent bill that Bush vetoed had nothing to do with welfare.
The hell you say.

But thinking that it will be cheaper because it's provided by the gov't is misguided.

nonsense.

It is common sense that if you don't have to pay the 35-40% overhead for marketing and multi-million dollar executive salaries, you are going to save money.

nonsense.

It is common sense that if you don't have to pay the 35-40% overhead for marketing and multi-million dollar executive salaries, you are going to save money.



you can not vbe so stupid as to think the government can be efficient at anything. You must still live with mommy and daddy.

You want a picture of Government health care. Take a good look at the VA hospitals. That would be what social health care could possibly turn out to be. Plus i dont want to pay for other people children health care cause there to damn lazy to pay for it themselves or find a health insurance provider on there own. Our taxes would go up to pay for social health care.

you can not vbe so stupid as to think the government can be efficient at anything.

You really need to learn when to shut up so you don't make yourself look like an idiot, like you did right here.

The government can be much more efficient at providing certain services because their primary motivator is not profit.

Our taxes would go up to pay for social health care.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. There is enough graft and waste to cover national health care several times over.

We would have a net savings since we would no longer have to pay the outrageously expensive private insurance company premiums.

.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. There is enough graft and waste to cover national health care several times over.

We would have a net savings since we would no longer have to pay the outrageously expensive private insurance company premiums.

.
Yeah, right and the new socialist party(liberals) have cure all government sponsored programs without raising taxes. Liberals are always for raising taxes. Where do you think the money will come from. The money tree. I already pay enough in taxes and it will rise when social health care is implemented.

Yeah, right and the new socialist party(liberals) have cure all government sponsored programs without raising taxes. Liberals are always for raising taxes. Where do you think the money will come from. The money tree. I already pay enough in taxes and it will rise when social health care is implemented.


Never fear. The liberals "have a plan". This plan will end all government fraud and waste, plus world hunger, put a stop to all wars, insuring peace and harmony for everyone. Not only will this plan not require any additional taxes, it will allow the government to pay each family $5,000 for each child, and provide free medical care for all, and pay off the national debt, leaving a surplus, within eight years. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

nonsense.

It is common sense that if you don't have to pay the 35-40% overhead for marketing and multi-million dollar executive salaries, you are going to save money.


Common sense doesn't explain why Canada's health care costs have risen in line with the US' health care costs.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. There is enough graft and waste to cover national health care several times over.

We would have a net savings since we would no longer have to pay the outrageously expensive private insurance company premiums.

.

See above.

Yeah, right and the new socialist party(liberals) have cure all government sponsored programs without raising taxes. Liberals are always for raising taxes. Where do you think the money will come from. The money tree. I already pay enough in taxes and it will rise when social health care is implemented.

As I said, there is more than enough graft and waste to cover national health care in America several times over.

We can start with things like the $9 Billion this administration "lost" in Iraq.
Or the 190,000 weapons that "disappeared".
Not to mention the billions that we are being overcharged by Haliburton and Bectel.

Taxes don't have to be "raised", we just have to start spending our money more responsibly.

Common sense doesn't explain why Canada's health care costs have risen in line with the US' health care costs.

I do not believe that they have.

Never fear. The liberals "have a plan". This plan will end all government fraud and waste, plus world hunger, put a stop to all wars, insuring peace and harmony for everyone. Not only will this plan not require any additional taxes, it will allow the government to pay each family $5,000 for each child, and provide free medical care for all, and pay off the national debt, leaving a surplus, within eight years. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yup, it is a nice change to the blatant fraud and corruption we got during the 12 years of Republican rule.

:thumbs:
db

You really need to learn when to shut up so you don't make yourself look like an idiot, like you did right here.

The government can be much more efficient at providing certain services because their primary motivator is not profit.


:lolhit:
He said the government can be efficient. Have you ever had to deal with the government for anything? Just take the DMV for example. have you ever spent time at the DMV? If you have and been witness to the beaurocratic cluster fuck that it is, multiply that by ten and you will get what national health care will be, if we are lucky. It will probably be much worse.


You do not understand how the private sector differs from government. Profit is a great motivator to make things more efficient, not an obstacle. It is when profit is no issue that you get 47 layers of "administration" that do nothing but spend money. Look at education with its multi layer administration log jam. look at DOT with ten guys standing around a hole with shovels while one guy digs. Why do you think health care will be any different?

I do not believe that they have.

Like the red queen you try to beleive at least six impossible things per day. The fact of the matter remains that they have.

You do not understand how the private sector differs from government. Profit is a great motivator to make things more efficient, not an obstacle. It is when profit is no issue that you get 47 layers of "administration" that do nothing but spend money. Look at education with its multi layer administration log jam. look at DOT with ten guys standing around a hole with shovels while one guy digs. Why do you think health care will be any different?
Well said, Trav, but I wouldn't waste your time. When someone has a two-digit IQ, then their perspective is of no consequence. Let the retard think whatever he wants - he's beyond repair.

Praetorian and Trav.... you are beyond repair.

Like the red queen you try to beleive at least six impossible things per day. The fact of the matter remains that they have.

I know better than to trust the word of someone like yourself.

:thumbs:
db

Praetorian and Trav.... you are beyond repair.

Indeed, if the two of them combined their IQs they would still only be in the single digits.

You've a lot of room to talk - yours is equivalent to your shoe size.

He said the government can be efficient.

And it is true. For example, we have the most efficient military in the world.


have you ever spent time at the DMV?

Only when I lived in California. We don't have "DMV" in Michigan. We have the Secretary of State's office.

Those departments vary from state to state and then from office to office.
For example, there is a secretary of state's office right around the corner from my house but I never go there because the wait times are long. However, there is an office in downtown Mt. Clemens, down the road, which never has any wait time.

You are making sweeping, over-generalized claims about the entire government which are demonstratively false.


If you have and been witness to the beaurocratic cluster fuck that it is, multiply that by ten and you will get what national health care will be, if we are lucky. It will probably be much worse.

You are confusing the idea of the government PAYING for the health care through taxes with the idea of the government actually running the health care system, by employing all the doctors, etc. They are totally different systems but you seem to be purposely confusing them which is terribly dishonest on your part.


You do not understand how the private sector differs from government.

Wrong. I understand it perfectly.


Profit is a great motivator to make things more efficient, not an obstacle.

1. Profit is not the goal of government. Trying to make it the goal of government is a HUGE mistake that will only make everything worse.

2. "Efficiency" means totally different things when comparing government and private enterprise. Private enterprise measures "efficiency" in it's profit margins, whereas government measures "efficiency" in the quality of services provided.



It is when profit is no issue that you get 47 layers of "administration" that do nothing but spend money. Look at education with its multi layer administration log jam. look at DOT with ten guys standing around a hole with shovels while one guy digs. Why do you think health care will be any different?

We already have 50 layers of administration in our private health insurance system right now. My doctor's office, with two doctors, a father and son, employs eight people just to do billing because medical billing is a multi-layer clusterfuck that makes everything in health care far more complicated and expensive than it needs to be. A single-payer system would save us an estimated $300 Billion in administrative costs alone, according to Physicians for National Health Care. (http://www.pnhp.org/)

Government is the biggest racket there is.
I see you too are unfamiliar with the concept of a racket. Money isn't wasted or squandered in a racket, it's predatorily made and hoarded.

I see you too are unfamiliar with the concept of a racket. Money isn't wasted or squandered in a racket, it's predatorily made and hoarded.

That says a lot about what corporatists think the true roll of government should be... a racket to enrich themselves and their friends...

I see you too are unfamiliar with the concept of a racket. Money isn't wasted or squandered in a racket, it's predatorily made and hoarded.
Not necessarily; that's what's not what defines a racket - a racket is simply a dishonest machination in which people are swindled out of their money. How the swindlers spend that money doesn't necessarily enter the equation - especially, if the money being made is (for lack of a better word here) an annuity in which is protected by Uncle Sam under the auspices of a "service". With government, the "racket" is essentially lawful extortion via their needless bureaucracy and ever-inflating "administrative" costs. I don't know where you and Karl Marx here went to business school, but that's NOT the philosophy that made our country the economic powerhouse it is. If you think our government is efficient when it comes to spending your money, then god help you.

The racket is taking our money and blowing it then saying we need to pay more or kids will starve or not have health care.

The racket is taking our money and blowing it then saying we need to pay more or kids will starve or not have health care.

True, I think what we spend in one week in Iraq would cover every kid in America.

No, not "saying", Trav - forcing. Big difference.

Which, by the vary nature of it's being, obviously bars competition, but then again, who really cares about that little "Western" notion when everyone's healthcare is paid for by you and I? :rolleyes:

No, not "saying", Trav - forcing. Big difference.

Which, by the vary nature of it's being, obviously bars competition, but who really cares about that little "Western" notion when everyone's healthcare is paid for by you and I?

There are some situations where competition is inappropriate and unhelpful. Would you rather have competition among police, so when you are being robbed you get an IVR when you call 9-11 that asks you to choose from between 10 different police services, all with their own fee schedules?

yes, we know there is always an exception, but in general competition is best for everyone in the long run.

yes, we know there is always an exception, but in general competition is best for everyone in the long run.

In the case of consumer products and non-life or death services, I agree completely.

Competition has proved to be a negative when it comes to paying for health care. All it has done is drive prices through the roof and shut millions of Americans out.

In the case of consumer products and non-life or death services, I agree completely.

Competition has proved to be a negative when it comes to paying for health care. All it has done is drive prices through the roof and shut millions of Americans out.

How does competition drive prices through the roof? Competition lowers prices. When a two stores compete how do they attract new customers? By raising prices? no. They have sales, they offer extra services.

This is how it works. Buisness needs customers to make money. If their prices are to high they wont get customers. So in order to attract new customers they lower prices, or add incentives.

Governemnt is the opposite. When they need more money they raise the prices. they dont attract new customers, they charge the customers they already ahve more. Most f the time the customers have o other option. So, when the government health care starts to come up short for cash, which you know they will, do you think they will lower prices to attract new customers? no, they will raise the prices, and we will have to pay it.

Face it, government run health care is a good idea but can not possibly work anywhre close to what the promise is. It will be a giant ball of red tape and waste that will grow out of control, and our health care will suffer.

There are some situations where competition is inappropriate and unhelpful. Would you rather have competition among police, so when you are being robbed you get an IVR when you call 9-11 that asks you to choose from between 10 different police services, all with their own fee schedules?
What you STILL fail to understand is that it's an apples to oranges comparison (although, to your credit, it's somewhat valid - more on that to follow) - what we're talking about here is essentially implementation on the local level vs. the national level, which for obvious reasons, brings to the table a different set of problems entirely too long to list here.

Now, OTOH, I'll tell you why your comparison works - local police and local fire districts are some of the BEST examples of waste on the planet, what - with their ever inflating budgets, token promotions, grab-asstic union ball squeezing, and 40 levels of bureaucracy in between. Moreover, there's no accountability, and every employee is mollycoddled to a degree in which would make Paris Hilton sick.

Multiply the bureaucracy and internal waste (and not to mention the corruption) by a fold of 400, and there's your nationalized healthcare "solution".

There's just no way you'll ever be able to convince a fiscal conservative with a degree in econ/finance this plan's viable. It's bullshit.

Face it, government run health care is a good idea but can not possibly work anywhre close to what the promise is.

You are once again confusing national health care with this big lie of government "run" health care. They are not the same thing at all.

Also, Universal health care already does work in every other industrialized country in the world.

There's just no way you'll ever be able to convince a fiscal conservative with a degree in econ/finance this plan's viable.

Absolute nonsense.

REAL fiscal conservatives know that national health care is the only answer to save our businesses from the competition-killing burden of the health care costs in this country.

You will never convince a moral individual that allowing private industry to put profit over the health of human beings is acceptable.

Absolute nonsense.

REAL fiscal conservatives know that national health care is the only answer to save our businesses from the competition-killing burden of the health care costs in this country.

You will never convince a moral individual that allowing private industry to put profit over the health of human beings is acceptable.

I agree with you on this. Health care costs and insurance are killing our industry. In japan Toyota has to pay nothing to its employees for health coverage, GM has to pay out the rear end. Part of that I put on the unions though.

I know better than to trust the word of someone like yourself.

:thumbs:
db

You don't have to take my word for it. Just look at how health care as a percentage of the federal or provincial budget has ballooned thru the years.

Part of that I put on the unions though.
Ya think!?

I agree with you on this. Health care costs and insurance are killing our industry. In japan Toyota has to pay nothing to its employees for health coverage, GM has to pay out the rear end.

I agree completely.


Part of that I put on the unions though.

I certainly don't. Unions bear less of the blame than government and business.
You can't blame 8% of the workforce for the decisions of the government and of 98% of the business owners.