Where does the other $94 billion per year come from?

William, thank you for starting off the work week with a nice easy question. I know you had to be thinking "now how can I ease my readers back into the flow of work after a long weekend?" Serious demerits for anyone who doesn't get the answer, however.

So not only will insurance carriers pass along the cost of this new tax in the form of higher premiums, but your own personal tax bill is almost guaranteed to rise over time leaving you to contend with the traditional 'double whammy' – higher costs on less net income. Oh, and as you point out, millions will be left with Government Insurance which is dedicated towards stamping out that overuse you cite. My prediction is that Government Insurance will be structured in such a way that between the co-insurance amount (premium co-share), the co-pays and the deductibles, the poor still won't be able to afford to to go to the doctor.

But they'll have a shiny new insurance card for their wallets or purses, dammit.

The end goal for the democrats has and will remain getting all the healthcare dollars in the hands of government. A few extra trillions to dole out, and control over medical and healthcare decisions, would serve to drastically expand government's role in people's daily lives. Not to mention the fact that the collectivists are counting that once the well indoctrinated, seemingly detached, and lazy segment of the younger generation becomes used to having government deal with healthcare decisions & issues for them, they will be even more susceptible to having government take over even more of those "hard" decisions and issues for them. The appeal of getting protection from the bad consequences’ of one’s decision making, especially amongst those that are prone to stupid ones, is strong. This is about the piecemeal expansion of socialism and a complete government takeover of real freedoms. Those that want freedom from the consequences of their bad choices which entrust government with the role of protector, are guaranteed to lose all freedoms eventually.

If these people really wanted to fix healthcare they would make it portable, less likely to cost a ton because of overreaching government regulations and lawyers feeding at the trough, and give up on trying to get their hands on the cash involved. But there is no chance that happens with collectivists and their agenda.

A stark admission that your health care is going to get more expensive because you'll be paying for yourself and 40 million more freeloaders.

Medicare alone already costs this country as much as the entire military. People aren't going broke paying their medical bills. They're going broke paying the medical bills of other people. Now Obama and the Dems want you to pay more along with your insurance company and doctor, who they categorize as greedy and evil. They want to tax you into crappier insurance so you visit the doctor less, so people who don't work can go for free.

The only question left is whether they're too damn stupid to see the consequences, or if they're intentionally trying to punish Americans and destroy our economy. Either way, they've made this debate personal for millions of Americans. Screw Congress. Screw Obama. Screw the Democrats. You will fail.

Because of rising costs, which includes employees running wild in the use of their insurance

I love this little comment, what exactly is that supposed to mean, that its okay to have insurance but dont actually use it? What is the purpose of insurance if not to use it?

What is the purpose of insurance if not to use it?

2009-09-08 12:55:31

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate the risk of a costly or catastrophic health issue. It is NOT to call an ambulance and run to the emergency room for every sniffle or hangnail.

What is the purpose of insurance if not to use it?

2009-09-08 12:55:31

Do you submit a claim to your auto insurance company when you have the oil changed or when there is a serious accident?

Do you submit a claim for your home insurance when a wall needs to be repainted or after there is a catastrophic fire?

Are you really this stupid?

The purpose of insurance is to mitigate the risk of a costly or catastrophic health issue. It is NOT to call an ambulance and run to the emergency room for every sniffle or hangnail.

Posted by TheBaud

2009-09-08 13:11:00

The purpose of insurance is to help mitigate the high cost of health care, period. It is certianly to be used when seeing the doctor or dentist, otherwise the expenses would be too high. Now we actively have conservatives saying not to use your insurance, unreal.

Do you submit a claim to your auto insurance company when you have the oil changed or when there is a serious accident? .

well since my auto insurance doesnt cover oil changes its a moot point now isnt it. If it did cover oil change, then yes I would use it, if I have to pay for it I am going to use it. Since I pay for my health insurance I am going to use it.

well since my auto insurance doesnt cover oil changes its a moot point now isnt it. If it did cover oil change, then yes I would use it,

If it did cover oil changes you would have to pay a lot more for insurance, wouldn't you?

What you're saying is that, in the end, it is your responsibility to pay for your own health care. There is no free lunch.

Thank you for proving us right.

What you're saying is that, in the end, it is your responsibility to pay for your own health care. There is no free lunch.

Thank you for proving us right.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 13:56:28

King,

I checked all my comments on this post and I never said anything of the kind, is this like the other day when you said that you had seen Obama's speech (the one that came out on Monday) before he had actually published it, now you can read minds, interesting stuff. The costs of medical care without insurance would bankrupt me in the first month, for purely preventive care for myself, spouse and children without insurance would run close to $2500 a month, thank heaven that we have insurance that helps us out with that.

What is the purpose of insurance if not to use it?

WU, as a purchaser of health plans covering some 18,000 employees and their dependents, I can tell you that the utilisation rate of a group is a major determinant to the overall cost of the plan. If most of the members of your health plan run to the doctor with every minor malady and complaint, it does two things: a)it takes their doctor's time away from other, more serious cases, and b)it forces the insurance plan to kick in it's share for the office call thereby increasing the med-loss ratio, which ultimately is what drives the rates for next year. Imagine what would happen to your homeowners rates if you filed a claim for every little thing which happened to and around your home – within a year, or two at the most, you'd be paying a much higher premium. Or imagine if you had three auto accidents in two years – what would you expect to happen to your rates?

Most reasonable people think there's a balance which needs to be struck between providing excellent coverage and access to services versus having people use the plan to excess and cause the group rates to rise.

And it's a tough balance to achieve.

Most reasonable people think there's a balance which needs to be struck between providing excellent coverage and access to services versus having people use the plan to excess and cause the group rates to rise.

And it's a tough balance to achieve.

Posted by martinhale

2009-09-08 14:03:00

I would agree with this statement as I dont go see my doctor for every flu or cold case that I have. Perhaps the problem is that we treat health insurance and care as a commodity, something to be brokered and make money off of. That is a sad state of affairs when that occurs.

I checked all my comments on this post and I never said anything of the kind,

I never claimed that you said it. I merely pointed out that your insurance costs would rise if it covered oil changes. Am I correct or incorrect?

is this like the other day when you said that you had seen Obama's speech (the one that came out on Monday) before he had actually published it,

Then provide my comments. I said that the references that I linked to pointed out that Obama removed parts of his original speech, dumbass.

now you can read minds, interesting stuff.

Well, you still don't understand English. Interesting stuff.

The costs of medical care without insurance would bankrupt me in the first month, for purely preventive care for myself, spouse and children without insurance would run close to $2500 a month, thank heaven that we have insurance that helps us out with that.

And medical care would bankrupt me as well. However, unlike you who demands that we pay for your selfish lifestyle, I am willing to pay for my own living as well as for my wife and children. Not one leftist has ever asked why health costs are so expensive. It is the typical "they're making too much money!" response.

If health care costs are so expensive then lets at least reduce the mandates to make insurance (and health care costs) more affordable. Too bad you don't give a rat's ass over that. All you want is for other people to pay for your costs so spare me the pity stories.

Tort reform? Yeah, who cares about that? Only lawyers and Democratic senators can make a lot of money. Screw everybody else.

I would agree with this statement as I dont go see my doctor for every flu or cold case that I have. Perhaps the problem is that we treat health insurance and care as a commodity, something to be brokered and make money off of. That is a sad state of affairs when that occurs.

2009-09-08 14:11:37

So, earning a living is wrong? Should your doctor work free of charge to provide you with service?

Should the research scientist sacrifice his livelihood to make that next miracle drug?

That's your problem. You care about profits first and health care second. If you oppose that go to medical school and work free of charge for the poor.

It's OK for you to earn a living but not other people. Duly noted, dumbass.

Why don't you ask President Hopey McChange and George Soros for the money for your health care since they're both rich? I hear Michael Moore has made another movie attacking capitalism. Hmm, I wonder how much money he'll keep from that movie?

WU, the same principal is at play in single-payer plans as well. The French system is undergoing a bit of a fiscal meltdown at present, in large part because of the extremely high utilisation rates they have. I don't have the figure at the top of my memory, but I think the French pay only 5 euros for an office visit, leaving the health plan on the hook for the other 35 euros. Over the years, the French as a whole have taken to running to the doctor for every little thing, and now the expence of doing things that way is threatening to bankrupt their system. I read just the other day that they may have to turn to increasing the rationing of health care in order for the system to self-sustain w/o increasing taxes.

Patients share some of the burden of responsibility for health insurance rates, wittingly or unwittingly, and I've not heard of a health care payment system in the world which has found a way to strike and maintain the balance I mentioned above. Part of the problem is that in the end, whether to go to the doctor or not is a judgment call, and let's face it, people, in the aggregate sense, often have very poor judgment.

That's your problem. You care about profits first and health care second. If you oppose that go to medical school and work free of charge for the poor.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:19:09

You have the completly backwards King, drug companies and insurance companies care about profits first and healt care second, otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion. I have no problem with doctors making a living, however as with all things there needs to be a balance, right now there is not one.

I checked all my comments on this post and I never said anything of the kind,

I never claimed that you said it. I merely pointed out that your insurance costs would rise if it covered oil changes. Am I correct or incorrect?

Really King because here is your statement:

What you're saying is that, in the end, it is your responsibility to pay for your own health care. There is no free lunch.

Notice the word "saying" King, stop lying.

Then provide my comments. I said that the references that I linked to pointed out that Obama removed parts of his original speech, dumbass.

No they didnt idiot, what you linked was to lesson plans for the Dept of Education. It didnt have any copies of the speech, are you really this clueless, the speech wasnt posted anywhere until Monday, god are you dense.

You have the completly backwards King, drug companies and insurance companies care about profits first and healt care second,

Really? Without health care, drug and insurance companies would not be able to make money. They have a product to sell just like any other companies.

You know jack shit about this. Too bad that honest Americans will have to suffer simply because selfish, dishonest ones like you only think of yourselves.

otherwise we wouldnt be having this discussion.

No, we need this discussion to educate you with the truth. Too bad you refuse to listen.

I have no problem with doctors making a living, however as with all things there needs to be a balance, right now there is not one.

Gee, how nice of you to give your approval to allow other people to make money. Thank you for proving me right once again…you're a selfish prick.

Go on Medicaid if insurance is too expensive. Prove to us that a public option will work for you. Otherwise, shut the fuck up you ignorant prick.

Really? Without health care, drug and insurance companies would not be able to make money. They have a product to sell just like any other companies.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:29:43

Thats why insurace companies routinely deny coverage because it is too expensive right King? Because they care so much for health care, sure sparky.

What you're saying is that, in the end, it is your responsibility to pay for your own health care. There is no free lunch.

Notice the word "saying" King, stop lying.

OK, you're not "saying" but "implying." You're still a habitual liar.

No they didnt idiot,

They didn't change the president's original speech? Better check out the facts because you're wrong again.

what you linked was to lesson plans for the Dept of Education. It didnt have any copies of the speech, are you really this clueless, the speech wasnt posted anywhere until Monday, god are you dense.

Nice attempt at deflection but you didn't answer my question. I even stated this in an earlier post today.

Gee, how nice of you to give your approval to allow other people to make money.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:29:43

I see so there should be no rules on making an income King? Is it okay for companies to force minors to work in hazardous conditions? How about exposing your workers to toxic envronments is this okay as well in the pursuit of making money?

Thats why insurace companies routinely deny coverage because it is too expensive right King? Because they care so much for health care, sure sparky.

2009-09-08 14:31:54

Who has been denied health coverage, other than those who cannot pay?

If you're talking about pre-existing conditions then why doesn't Medicaid (the public option) help them? Answer that, fuckwad.

Keep going. I can kick your ass all day.

Insurance companies don't "routinely" deny coverage. You know you're lying. Unfortunately, I'm far more knowledgeable at this than you.

They didn't change the president's original speech? Better check out the facts because you're wrong again.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:32:17

No they didnt, they only published the speech once King and it was on Monday, since you have provided no links to the supposed original speech that was changed you again are lying, why do you feel the need to do that?

Insurance companies don't "routinely" deny coverage. You know you're lying. Unfortunately, I'm far more knowledgeable at this than you.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:35:07

Actually they do King, that is why they have cost benefit anaylists on the payroll, to see what is too expensive and what is not.

I see so there should be no rules on making an income King? Is it okay for companies to force minors to work in hazardous conditions? How about exposing your workers to toxic envronments is this okay as well in the pursuit of making money?

2009-09-08 14:33:39

So anybody who makes a profit is evil? I guess you're evil by exploiting workers. I guess because you take a paycheck home, you're forcing minors to work in hazardous conditions or forcing workers to work in toxic environments.

You make a profit so, by your OWN ADMISSION, you're evil.

You certainly are selfish and greedy

Actually they do King,

Actually, they don't whats_fucked_up.

Interesting how you don't have a problem with Democratic Congressmen and women making a profit. Simply get Pelosi, Kerry and especially Kennedy's estate to chip in. Interesting how you're fine with them making money.

So anybody who makes a profit is evil? I guess you're evil by exploiting workers. I guess because you take a paycheck home, you're forcing minors to work in hazardous conditions or forcing workers to work in toxic environments.

You make a profit so, by your OWN ADMISSION, you're evil.

You certainly are selfish and greedy

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:38:05

Again you have failed to answer the question, are these practices okay as long as the company makes a profit? It is a yes or no question King, whats the matter too tough of a question for you?

Interesting, whats_fucked_up, that you refuse to take my advice and go on Medicaid, a.k.a. the public option. That way, you won't have to pay to the 'evil, greedy insurance companies.'

Let us know when you're proudly on the public option. Be careful what you wish for.

I also find it interesting how you don't seem to mind that senior members of Congress, including Democrats, will be able to keep their current coverage. What's the matter, why can they keep their choices but not the American people?

Again you have failed to answer the question, are these practices okay as long as the company makes a profit? It is a yes or no question King, whats the matter too tough of a question for you?

2009-09-08 14:41:40

And I threw the question right back at you. Answer it if you have a pair. Is it OK for you to make a profit?

It's a simple yes or no question.

Once again, Democrats are proving that they do not understand the free market nor the law of consequences

Maybe its because the government mistakenly believes that the insurance companies will simply print more money. After all, that’s what the government thinks it can do.

Now excuse me for a second. I need a new car and these new bills take a while to print. :-P

I also find it interesting how you don't seem to mind that senior members of Congress, including Democrats, will be able to keep their current coverage. What's the matter, why can they keep their choices but not the American people?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:42:57

Where do you get the idea that the American people wont be able to keep their choice of insurance? Not one bill that I have read says this, do you just pull this out of your ass?

And I threw the question right back at you. Answer it if you have a pair. Is it OK for you to make a profit?

It's a simple yes or no question.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:44:01

Yes within reason it is okay to make a profit. Within reason being the key phrase. Your turn.

Where do you get the idea that the American people wont be able to keep their choice of insurance? Not one bill that I have read says this, do you just pull this out of your ass?

2009-09-08 14:44:56

Thank you for proving ONCE AGAIN that you're stupid as shit.

Bottom Line on Public Insurance Plan Gets Blurry

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8503475

Then why are the Democrats all saying that the public option is off the table? Why remove something that is not there: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-08-16-healt...
Yes within reason it is okay to make a profit. Within reason being the key phrase. Your turn.

2009-09-08 14:45:35

Exactly. Now, all you have to do is prove that insurance companies are exploiting minors and forcing workers to work in hazardous conditions (as you used in your example) and then the government will have every right to go after these companies. A safe environment should be within reason.

However, since you know that is not the case and intentionally lied simply because they don't meet your standards, you have no right to dictate what other people may or may not do. Money, like other property belongs to individuals, not the collective despite what president Hopey McChange says. If you disagree then force Obama to turn over all of his money first.

Now run off and go fuck yourself.

Finally, why the rush for a bill that isn't supposed to be implemented until 2013? I thought that one of Obama's promises was to give the public time to review bills.

Another expiration date to another promise, whats_fucked_up?

"Perhaps the problem is that we treat health insurance and care as a commodity, something to be brokered and make money off of."

What do you think it is, a right? Should doctors, nurses, scientists, and administrators all work for free because you feel entitled to top-notch medical care?

Those people get paid because they do very difficult work in an environment that exposes them to personal and legal risk. They pay for their schooling, work long hours, and often donate their time and effort in various ways.

You want somebody else to pay for your $2500 a month in medical bills, to be able to win the lawsuit lottery anytime somebody makes a mistake, and demand you get it all without the people providing it making any money. The arrogance and selfishness of you liberals knows no bounds.

Oh, but it's the insurance companies that are evil and greedy, right? Well who do you think pays for your $2500 of medical care every month? The insurance company…who has the business sense to charge other people higher rates to make up for your colossal drain on the system. That is how insurance works, you know. It's not like the government that just whips up money any time it needs some.

You merrily visit the doctor to the tune of thousands of dollars every month, complain that you don't get enough, and denigrate all the people who provide that care. Yeah, I'd say the status quo is an immoral system all right.

You merrily visit the doctor to the tune of thousands of dollars every month, complain that you don't get enough, and denigrate all the people who provide that care. Yeah, I'd say the status quo is an immoral system all right.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 15:02:12

Mike,

Its nice to know that you think only those with enough money should be healthy. I am very glad that I dont live in your miserable little world. So have you forgone insurance? Or are you asking others to pay for your health as well.

Where do you get the idea that the American people wont be able to keep their choice of insurance? Not one bill that I have read says this, do you just pull this out of your ass?

Read the bill yourself, asswipe: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

(1) RECOMMENDATIONS ON BENEFIT STANDARDS- The Health Benefits Advisory Committee shall recommend to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘Secretary’) benefit standards (as defined in paragraph (4)), and periodic updates to such standards. In developing such recommendations, the Committee shall take into account innovation in health care and consider how such standards could reduce health disparities.

This means that the government will determine appropriate benefits.

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

Illegal aliens can be covered under this plan.

End of life care:

‘(A) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization, if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

In other words, the government gets to set governing standards.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 14:54:53

King,

Thanks for the article, no where in it does it say that Americans wont be allowed to keep the insurance of their choice. Again where do you get the idea that Americans will HAVE to give up their insurance of choice. Oh thats right, they wont.

Its nice to know that you think only those with enough money should be healthy.

Mike never said that. Interesting that you think that only you should be able to dictate who can make a profit and who cannot.

In other words, the government gets to set governing standards.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:10:48

Again how does this mean that Americans wont be able to keep the insurance of their choice, no where in what you quoted was that said, can you provide evidence of this statement or not? Or is simply a "feeling" that you have?

Thanks for the article, no where in it does it say that Americans wont be allowed to keep the insurance of their choice. Again where do you get the idea that Americans will HAVE to give up their insurance of choice. Oh thats right, they wont.

2009-09-08 15:12:08

Actually, it does. I already provided the link and some excerpts. I've already proven you a liar. I'll do so when you answer the other questions and admit that you were wrong.

When are you going to prove that insurance companies exploit minors or will this be filed under the same section where you claimed that David Duke supported for Bush in 2004?

Mike never said that. Interesting that you think that only you should be able to dictate who can make a profit and who cannot.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:12:18

Good thing I never said that Mike made that statement then huh? He IMPLIED it remember!

Again how does this mean that Americans wont be able to keep the insurance of their choice, no where in what you quoted was that said, can you provide evidence of this statement or not? Or is simply a "feeling" that you have?

2009-09-08 15:13:44

Again, I'll prove it when you prove that insurance companies are exploiting minors. Interesting how I shut your fucking pie hole on that argument.

Good thing I never said that Mike made that statement then huh? He IMPLIED it remember!

2009-09-08 15:14:51

Mike never implied it either. Too bad English is your fourth or fifth language.

When are you going to prove that insurance companies exploit minors or will this be filed under the same section where you claimed that David Duke supported for Bush in 2004?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:14:02

King,

I never said that insurance companies exploit minors. I asked if it was okay for any company to make a profit doing that, try following along once in a while.

I love this little comment, what exactly is that supposed to mean, that its okay to have insurance but dont actually use it? What is the purpose of insurance if not to use it?

Posted by whats_up

No, the thing is, whats up, many people go way, way, way overboard with their insurance, going to the doctor, and hospital, when they should just go to the drug store and get a bottle of cold or flu remedy. People can just call the nurse lines through their insurance for stuff like that, too. Instead, they go to the emergency room, which costs a butload of money to the company and insurer. People do not think of the high costs because they pay a nice little copay.

Use the insurance when you need it for real, not just because you have a hang nail.

Mike never implied it either. Too bad English is your fourth or fifth language.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:15:33

Oh I see, your double standard at work, You can imply what other people say but they cant, gotcha! You never cease to amaze King.

No, the thing is, whats up, many people go way, way, way overboard with their insurance, going to the doctor, and hospital, when they should just go to the drug store and get a bottle of cold or flu remedy. People can just call the nurse lines through their insurance for stuff like that, too. Instead, they go to the emergency room, which costs a butload of money to the company and insurer. People do not think of the high costs because they pay a nice little copay.

Use the insurance when you need it for real, not just because you have a hang nail.

Posted by William Teach

2009-09-08 15:16:44

Thanks for the clarification William, and I would agree with the emergency room visits for things that you should call your nurse for, no doubt about it.

I never said that insurance companies exploit minors. I asked if it was okay for any company to make a profit doing that, try following along once in a while.

2009-09-08 15:16:05

Considering that no KNOWN American company exploits minors today your example was a has-been, like you.

You still haven't proven any of your claims. When you do so I'll respond to your question about keeping insurance.

Too bad you're in over your head.

Oh I see, your double standard at work, You can imply what other people say but they cant, gotcha! You never cease to amaze King.

2009-09-08 15:16:57

Hmm, I would say that English is your fourth language, judging from your intentional lies.

If I'm lying then you would have proven it by now.

Considering that no KNOWN American company exploits minors today your example was a has-been, like you.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:19:15

Exactly King, it took you a while to realize this, and why is that. Its because people said that making a profit like that is wrong, so they set some standards. See its not okay to simply make a profit, it is how you going about doing so that matters. That is the same argument that we are having now, its not the profits that are the problem its how they are being made.

Again how does this mean that Americans wont be able to keep the insurance of their choice

How can any company possibly stay in business when its customers stop using them? So many businesses will drop their private insurance plans that insurance companies will go right out of business. The only private insurance firms left will have to charge exorbitant rates to stay afloat, making them available only to the very rich. So good luck keeping "the insurance of your choice" when the only insurance available in your state is either Obamacare or Expensicare.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:15:00

So you dont have any evidence of that, thanks for admitting it.

Posted by CavalierX

2009-09-08 15:21:58

Sure Cav, thats why there is no affordable private health insurance in Canada or England right? You havent provided any facts that this will occur, you simply "feel" that this will happen. Good things conservatives dont base decisions on how they "feel"

Its because people said that making a profit like that is wrong, so they set some standards.

The Constitution set standards and liberal like you violate those standards.

"People said?" You mean, liberals say. Many Americans understand and accept this concept yet because you don't like it, people must be force to pay more money for your selfishness.

See its not okay to simply make a profit, it is how you going about doing so that matters.

So, again, YOU decide on what is moral in making a profit.

OK, I don't accept the way you make a profit. Now give me your money because I don't like what YOU do.

Once again, go in Medicaid if you don't like what the insurance companies do.

That is the same argument that we are having now, its not the profits that are the problem its how they are being made.

Yes, and there is nothing wrong with what they're doing. Prove that insurance companies are violating people's rights or that it is immoral. Simply saying that you don't approve is not evidence.

The vast majority of people on this site believe that you're dumb as shit so admit that as true. After all, as YOU say, "people said it" so it must be true.

See what happens when you only think of yourself?

Sure Cav, thats why there is no affordable private health insurance in Canada or England right?

There is in Germany, France and Australia.

You havent provided any facts that this will occur, you simply "feel" that this will happen. Good things conservatives dont base decisions on how they "feel"

2009-09-08 15:25:22

So when will you provide facts that the public option is the better choice? Your only argument is against profit. This site has provided numerous examples of the failure of socialized medicine. When will you provide facts?

"Its nice to know that you think only those with enough money should be healthy. I am very glad that I dont live in your miserable little world. So have you forgone insurance? Or are you asking others to pay for your health as well."

No, I have insurance and pay the premiums. Private health insurance is a voluntary contract for services that distributes cost based on risk. I think it's great. You're the one trashing the insurance companies because they charge premiums in order to stay in business.

But since you went there, let's ask the question. Why am I or anybody else obligated to pay for the medical care of others? Why should anybody capable of working be entitled to not only health care itself, but also the luxury of a comfortable lifestyle (not put deeply into debt) if they can not pay for it themselves?

People in this country aren't going broke paying for their health care. They're going broke paying for other people's health care. US taxpayers spend $400+ bilion a year on Medicare alone. That's roughly equal to the entire military budget. That doesn't include the costs of pro bono work done by doctors, care comped by hospitals to special cases, or free emergency care given to illegals or people with no ability to pay.

Nothing would make me happier than the ability to pay for my own health care via private insurance provided by companies in a national cometitive marketplace.

So you dont have any evidence of that, thanks for admitting it.

2009-09-08 15:22:30

So you refuse to answer my questions and demand I answer yours? Thank you for admitting that I'm correct.

See its not okay to simply make a profit, it is how you going about doing so that matters.

So, again, YOU decide on what is moral in making a profit.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:27:11

No we collectively as a society decide what is moral in making a profit.

Sure Cav, thats why there is no affordable private health insurance in Canada or England right?

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 15:25:22

Actually, the Canadian system is going broke:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681...

No we collectively as a society decide what is moral in making a profit.

2009-09-08 15:31:05

And society has decided that insurance companies can make a profit. You lose.

Nothing would make me happier than the ability to pay for my own health care via private insurance provided by companies in a national cometitive marketplace.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 15:29:33

And what happens when you turn 65 and cant afford your premiums anylonger? Are you just SOL? What of those who cant work enough to afford those premiums are they just SOL?

No we collectively as a society decide what is moral in making a profit.

2009-09-08 15:31:05

Show us the clause in the Constitution that gives the collective the right to determine profit. Society can put limits on offensive speech like pron but cannot stop it completely.

Money is private property and individuals and companies have the right to profit. Once again, you're dumb as shit.

And society has decided that insurance companies can make a profit. You lose.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:33:03

Yes your correct they have, but remember all things change King and that is what we are getting at.

Yes your correct they have, but remember all things change King and that is what we are getting at.

2009-09-08 15:34:34

Yeah, things do change, like Obama's approval numbers.

ROFL!

PWNED!

Money is private property and individuals and companies have the right to profit. Once again, you're dumb as shit.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:34:33

Really, this is your justification. So by that logic it would be okay to profit by endentured servitude, slavery and child labor since nowhere in the Constitution are those things prohibited.

And what happens when you turn 65 and cant afford your premiums anylonger? Are you just SOL? What of those who cant work enough to afford those premiums are they just SOL?

2009-09-08 15:33:59

Are the elderly being forced to work in hazardous conditions too, whats_up? Is this another outdated liberal talking point?

LOL!

Really, this is your justification. So by that logic it would be okay to profit by endentured servitude, slavery and child labor since nowhere in the Constitution are those things prohibited.

2009-09-08 15:35:56

Um, then what is the purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment?

Holy crap, are you stupid!

PWNED * 10^25

Um, then what is the purpose of the Thirteenth Amendment?

Holy crap, are you stupid!

PWNED * 10^25

Posted by Kingfisher

Again it took you long enough to get the point, that it was CHANGED by society, thanks for playing, no charge for the lesson today.

"And what happens when you turn 65 and cant afford your premiums anylonger? Are you just SOL? What of those who cant work enough to afford those premiums are they just SOL?"

I know the concept of personal responsibility is utterly lost on you, but somebody could, you know…save money for retirement while they're working.

I know…CRAZY, right? I must be one mean SOB for not thinking that people should get an all-expenses paid vacation until they die when they turn 65. Hell, this government gives that to Gitmo terrorists these days.

But as you intentionally missed, I said people capable of working. If you can work, but choose not to buy health insurance, why should you not be SOL when you get sick? Why should those people be entitled to reach into my pocket so they can have a healthy and debt-free lifestyle?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:36:13

King,

It is a real question, what of those folks, what avenue will they have for health care in a time that they need it most?

Again it took you long enough to get the point, that it was CHANGED by society, thanks for playing, no charge for the lesson today.

2009-09-08 15:40:27

You should have admitted that you were wrong and let that go. Let's go back, shall we?

Really, this is your justification. So by that logic it would be okay to profit by endentured servitude, slavery and child labor since nowhere in the Constitution are those things prohibited.

So what was changed? The Constitution, which you said….doesn't….exist.

Dumbass.

It is a real question, what of those folks, what avenue will they have for health care in a time that they need it most?

2009-09-08 15:41:56

Like I said before, I'll answer your questions when you provide evidence that the public option is the best choice, considering every public health care option in existence on Earth today is in danger of going bankrupt.

I know the concept of personal responsibility is utterly lost on you, but somebody could, you know…save money for retirement while they're working.

I know…CRAZY, right? I must be one mean SOB for not thinking that people should get an all-expenses paid vacation until they die when they turn 65. Hell, this government gives that to Gitmo terrorists these days.

But as you intentionally missed, I said people capable of working. If you can work, but choose not to buy health insurance, why should you not be SOL when you get sick? Why should those people be entitled to reach into my pocket so they can have a healthy and debt-free lifestyle?

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 15:41:22

Mike,

I appreciate the concept of saving for retirement, I do it myself. However that retirement money is not going to cover all those medical costs, as well has living expenses, you know food and shelter. What of the disabled that can work, but certainly not enough to make ends meet, what of them? This question is not black and white as much as you would make it out to be.

Like I said before, I'll answer your questions when you provide evidence that the public option is the best choice, considering every public health care option in existence on Earth today is in danger of going bankrupt.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:43:40

I get you dont like the public option, so what is your alternative?

Mike,

Whats_up is going to play this little game of 'evil corporate greed.'

Notice that he has provided no evidence whatsoever that it will work. Despite the evidence that Medicaid and Medicare are on the verge of bankrupcy, Mr. Obama asskisser thinks that another public option is the best choice.

Notice that he doesn't want to reduce or eliminate mandates. All he wants is his free health care, government is always the solution and never the problem to this nutjob.

So what was changed? The Constitution, which you said….doesn't….exist.

Dumbass.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:42:10

Yes the constitution was changed, to limit slavery and endentured servitude, because not only was it morally wrong, society determined that making a profit this way was wrong as well. Again the collective society makes these judgements all the time. Same reason that child labor was outlawed at the turn of the century, they determined that it was wrong to make a profit that way.

Notice that he has provided no evidence whatsoever that it will work. Despite the evidence that Medicaid and Medicare are on the verge of bankrupcy, Mr. Obama asskisser thinks that another public option is the best choice.

Notice that he doesn't want to reduce or eliminate mandates. All he wants is his free health care, government is always the solution and never the problem to this nutjob.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:47:25

Again I understand you dont like the public option, what is your alternative?

I get you dont like the public option, so what is your alternative?

2009-09-08 15:45:16

Read my post on 15:43:40. I'm not going to repeat myself. I know you won't answer, being the cowardly little prick you are.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/20/health/main681...

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:32:31

King,

Thanks for the article,Cav in it you will notice that Canadians can buy private insurance, also that doctors run private clinics.

Read my post on 15:43:40. I'm not going to repeat myself. I know you won't answer, being the cowardly little prick you are.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:48:26

So you dont have an alternative, thats what I thought.

Yes the constitution was changed,

Which means you were wrong before. Honestly, whats_up, how fucking stupid are you to allow yourself to be contradicted? I am laughing so hard at your stupidity.

whats_up: "The Constitution doesn't say it."

whats_up: "Well, er, um, uh, SOCIETY CHANGED IT!

ROFLMAO!

to limit slavery and endentured servitude, because not only was it morally wrong, society determined that making a profit this way was wrong as well. Again the collective society makes these judgements all the time.

So when a new amendment is written to limit profit, I'll agree to the public option. Get back to me when that is accomplished.

So you dont have an alternative, thats what I thought.

2009-09-08 15:50:58

That would mean you don't have an answer either, considering that you have provided no facts.

You lose again.

"What of the disabled that can work, but certainly not enough to make ends meet, what of them?"

People who are truly disabled, partially or completely, should recieve government assistance in the abscence of charity.

I believe government has a responsibility to help those who can not help themselves, and I gladly support levies for MRDD and senior care. But if you're of sound mind and body, go get yourself a damn job.

So when a new amendment is written to limit profit, I'll agree to the public option. Get back to me when that is accomplished.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:51:59

It doesnt have to be an amemdment King, we limit ways that people can make a profit all the time. Child labor and illegality being the prime examples.

also that doctors run private clinics.

2009-09-08 15:50:08

I noticed that you intentionally skipped the part about it going broke.

In other words, screw the children, you only want insurance for yourself.

It doesnt have to be an amemdment King, we limit ways that people can make a profit all the time. Child labor and illegality being the prime examples.

2009-09-08 15:53:56

Then prove that insurance companies utilize child labor and you'll be correct.

I'm waiting.

I believe government has a responsibility to help those who can not help themselves, and I gladly support levies for MRDD and senior care. But if you're of sound mind and body, go get yourself a damn job.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 15:53:05

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. This is where we agree so its a start. If you dont like the public option what would be your alternative?

Then prove that insurance companies utilize child labor and you'll be correct.

I'm waiting.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:54:59

Once again I never stated they did, I was making the point that we limit how individuals and companies can make a profit all the time, does this concept escape you somehow?

I noticed that you intentionally skipped the part about it going broke.

In other words, screw the children, you only want insurance for yourself.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:54:18

Not at all, I read that part and I am sure that they will come up with a creative solution to solve that problem. Why do you keep trying to "imply" what I say, I thought we had that discussion allready, are your retention skills that bad that you dont remember.

Actually, whats_up, you're wrong again.

An excerpt:

Canada does not have fully nationalized health care; its doctors are in private practice and send their bills to the government for reimbursement.

So doctors get their money from the government, not from private citizens.

Interesting how you pick and choose parts that you claim support your arguments, only to have them thrown back at you.

So doctors get their money from the government, not from private citizens.

Interesting how you pick and choose parts that you claim support your arguments, only to have them thrown back at you.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:58:23

Yep, but that puts to lie the fallacy that doctors wont go into business because they wont make any money now doesnt it, actually works out better for the doctor, they know that they are going to get paid.

Not at all, I read that part and I am sure that they will come up with a creative solution to solve that problem.

You're "sure" they will? If you're not certain then you haven't read anything.

Does the bill say that the government is "sure" to provide a 'creative solution?'

Why do you keep trying to "imply" what I say, I thought we had that discussion allready, are your retention skills that bad that you dont remember.

2009-09-08 15:57:47

Still sore from the recent asskicking?

That would mean you don't have an answer either, considering that you have provided no facts.

You lose again.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 15:52:40

You're right I dont have the answer, but I am putting forth what I think will work the best, and yours is….ya thats what I though, you dont even have anything to bring to the table.

Yep, but that puts to lie the fallacy that doctors wont go into business because they wont make any money now doesnt it, actually works out better for the doctor, they know that they are going to get paid.

2009-09-08 15:59:35

Read the article again, dumbass:

Canadians can buy insurance for dental and eye care, physical and chiropractic therapy, long-term nursing and prescriptions, among other services. But according to experts on both sides of the debate, Canada and North Korea are the only countries with laws banning the purchase of insurance for hospitalization or surgery.

Meanwhile, the average wait for surgical or specialist treatment is nearly 18 weeks, up from 9.3 weeks in 1993, according to the Fraser Institute, a right-wing public policy think tank in Vancouver. A Fraser study last year said the average wait for an orthopedic surgeon was more than nine months.

Honestly, whats_up, I'm through arguing with you. Get back to me when you're armed with facts.

You're right I dont have the answer,

You don't even know what's in the Constitution.

but I am putting forth what I think will work the best, and yours is….ya thats what I though, you dont even have anything to bring to the table.

2009-09-08 16:00:55

Yeah, what you "think" works best, not what you "know" works best nor what you have "learned" works best.

The victory is mine.

but I am putting forth what I think will work the best,

So, despite the fact that we have PROVEN the failure of socialized medicine, you're still in favor of it simply because you "think" it works best. In other words, you have no facts, you're only pulling feel-good nonsense out of your ass.

OK, name a socialist system that works better than ours and why.

but I am putting forth what I think will work the best,

One more point. You don't care if this will cost billions of dollars that we don't have. You don't care if this will increase our debt that will have to be repaid by our grandchildren. All you care about is yourself.

You cannot even admit that you were wrong about the 13th Amendment so you'll never admit that you may be mistaken. You "think" its the best option and that's it.

So, despite the fact that we have PROVEN the failure of socialized medicine, you're still in favor of it simply because you "think" it works best. In other words, you have no facts, you're only pulling feel-good nonsense out of your ass.

OK, name a socialist system that works better than ours and why.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 16:06:06

King you havent PROVEN anything, you have pointed out what you perceive the faults to be with socialized medicine but have not offered up any alternatives. We have a problem in America that is growing and will continue to grow, it will put companies out of business, it will cause millions more to not have health insurance. Yet your answer is what…nothing. Put forth alternatives, I am not set in stone, but that is the best offer that I have seen primarly because your side doesnt give any alternatives but the status quo, which is not working. Most Canadians and Britons are happy with their health care systems.

One more point. You don't care if this will cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 16:08:24

Not doing anything will cost us more. Sometimes in life your only choices are between bad and worse, thats just how life is.

"Okay, now we are getting somewhere. This is where we agree so its a start. If you dont like the public option what would be your alternative?"

For the disabled? Have the government create a simple mandate that private insurance companies must offer special case insurance for those people, and then have the government pay that high premium. Don't create a vast maze of new laws regarding specific coverages or treatment options, or a special class of government run health insurance, just write a check every month that covers the cost of the private insurance plus a typical small profit margin for regulated services (similar to what regulated phone companies or power companies get).

Of course, we're talking about a small minority of all the people currently on Medicare or without health insurance. Retirees or near-retires are a whole different mess because they're already in the pipeline and have been promised these services their whole lives. Able-bodied moochers just have to suck it up.

One more point. You don't care if this will cost billions of dollars that we don't have.

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 16:08:24

This is classic coming from conservatives who could care less how much money they spend as long as they are in power. Spare me your "fisical conservatism", that ship sailed long ago, get a better argument.

This is classic coming from conservatives who could care less how much money they spend as long as they are in power. Spare me your "fisical conservatism", that ship sailed long ago, get a better argument.

2009-09-08 16:15:10

Interesting that you never said that I was wrong. Thank you for your admittance that we don't have the money.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 16:11:36

Bullshit.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 16:12:51

More bullshit.

This is classic coming from conservatives who could care less how much money they spend as long as they are in power. Spare me your "fisical conservatism", that ship sailed long ago, get a better argument.

2009-09-08 16:15:10

Maybe the guy who stole the 13th Amendment from the Constitution has all the money from the U.S. Treasury.

ROFLMAO!

"This is classic coming from conservatives who could care less how much money they spend as long as they are in power."

Are you really trying to contend that nobody on RWN took Bush and the Republicans to task for their overspending from 2000-2006?

Fiscal conservatives believe the government should be limited to only its Constitutionally-appointed duties, but spend what is necessary on those duties. If we did that instead of spending 60% of the entire budget on entitlements, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Retirees or near-retires are a whole different mess because they're already in the pipeline and have been promised these services their whole lives. Able-bodied moochers just have to suck it up.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 16:13:36

The retiree's will be the real issue here Mike, very few working families will be able to save enough over their lifetimes to cover medical expenses during retirement as the system now stands. Costs have to come down, and the perception is that companies arent lowering costs, they are raising them. With the average senior spending 15,000 a year on medical costs that adds up quite quickly. Couple that with them living longer and you have a mess of a situation. By 2010 the fastest growing age group will be those over 90.

Fiscal conservatives believe the government should be limited to only its Constitutionally-appointed duties, but spend what is necessary on those duties. If we did that instead of spending 60% of the entire budget on entitlements, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Posted by Mike_M

2009-09-08 16:19:59

We can tell how well those fisical conservatives have done since the 80's now cant we.

This is classic coming from conservatives who could care less how much money they spend as long as they are in power. Spare me your "fisical conservatism", that ship sailed long ago, get a better argument.

One more question, whats_up? Was this spending approved by then-Senator Obama? Yes or no?

Whats_up, why are you running away with your tail tucked between your legs screaming, "Don't give me facts!"

One more question, whats_up? Was this spending approved by then-Senator Obama? Yes or no?

Posted by Kingfisher

2009-09-08 16:23:06

Yes he did.

"The retiree's will be the real issue here Mike, very few working families will be able to save enough over their lifetimes to cover medical expenses during retirement as the system now stands."

Yeah, those people probably would be able to save enough if they were conditioned to instead of expecting handouts, and if they weren't paying for the health care of the uninsured, illegals, and retirees in addition to themselves.

May as well come up with something because it's going away one way or another. Either through painful but organized cuts, or hyperinflation and economic collapse. And it's not going to be 20-30 years from now. It will happen the instant China cuts off our credit and we can no longer borrow half the budget.

Interesting subtopic: the morality of expecting every man, woman, and child in China, to pay another $1000 (it will cost $1 trillion we must borrow) so a few million more Americans don't have to pay to go to the doctor. You want to know "why they hate us", there's a good start.

Yes he did.

2009-09-08 16:24:31

Then you know that I, as well as others on this site, have taken Bush and Reagan to task about the spending numerous times</b so shut the fuck up.

Obama has caused the deficit to skyrocket and wants to increase the deficit even more, with your approval on health care spending.

Once again, it is liberals that don't give a rat's ass what happens to this country.

Where do you get the idea that the American people wont be able to keep their choice of insurance?

Why, from Barack Hussein Obama, of course:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

We can tell how well those fisical conservatives have done since the 80's now cant we.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 16:21:15

Democrats controlled Congess in most of the 80's. When Gingrich and his crew took over, they reformed welfare and got the budget squared up. Then the moderates took over, and screwed it up. I know that since January 2007 the economy in this country has gone to hell. I guess you consider Reid and Pelosi conservatives, you are stupid enough to do so.

In the end, whats_up proves once again the liberals' real intentions.

The purpose of a public option is not to help the poor but to destroy private enterprise.

Obviously, whats_up will disagree with that assertion but look at his comments. The vast majority of them are not about how we can help the poor but how we can stop "evil, greedy corporations." Without any facts whatsoever, whats_up claim that insurance companies deny coverage on a routine basis and uses arguments about child labor and hazardous conditions. Are office cubicles now hazardous conditions? :-P

No matter what the argument is about the issue boils down to profit…provided that the industry doesn't support the Democratic party (hint, hint: Entertainment industry).

Whats_up "thinks" that a public option is the best choice despite the fact that the current American public option (Medicaid) is on the verge of bankruptcy. The article I referenced earlier even admitted that Canada has sent patients to the U.S. for treatment. I thought the Canadian option was the better choice?

Whats_up even admits that health care costs are going up but rather than ask the question of "why," he simply wants the government to take it over. That won't reduce health care costs, it will simply transfer to the taxpayers.

Don't forget, what is set by the government can be changed by the government. Any health care plan initialized now can be modified in the future and whats_up knows that.

Whats_up,

Since you brought up slavery, chew on this for awhile.

You claimed that society decides what is acceptable. Remember that American society, at one time, decided that slavery was acceptable. Slavery wasn't a problem….provided that you weren't a slave. If you were then there were all sorts of excuses to justify slavery just like there are all sorts of justifications to explain progressive taxation for a public option.

Since you're in favor of raising taxes then I propose that we triple the taxes for all liberals. After all, if you're in favor of the public option then you should pay for it.

Go ahead and watch what happens. I dare you to support that.

The Constitution (even the 13th Amendment) protect individuals from the whims of society. That is why the U.S. is not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

It doesnt have to be an amemdment King, we limit ways that people can make a profit all the time. Child labor and illegality being the prime examples.

Posted by whats_up

2009-09-08 15:53:56

These laws have nothing to do with how people can make a profit. If that were true then non-profits would be able to have illegal and child labor.