Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[natty dread]

Nokia. Finnish government is much less intrusive than Greece's. The capitalistic part of your economy is large enough to overcome the socialistic parts.

That's got to be the dumbest, most uninformed thing I've read in a while.

For one thing, Nokia is not doing all that well... they fucked it up. You know why? While they were still doing good, they got cocky. They gave too big bonuses and options to the big shots... government didn't step in to intervene, so they basically got greedy and fucked up the company. Who even remembers nokia anymore? It's all iphone this and android that these days.

So no, Nokia is not propping my country up "despite of healthcare". They have moved most of their production overseas, so they're not employing many people, and they're not bringing much tax revenue.

As for "capitalistic parts"... don't make me laugh. What is it with you people? It's like you look at the world through some weird bifurcated lenses that allows you to see everything in dichotomies... you classify everything to either "liberal or conservative", "capitalist or socialist", "republican or democrat"... these dichotomies seem to have rotted your brain to such a degree that you can't see the actual issues for what they are, you just see everything as "socialist = bad, capitalist = good"... then when your favorite propaganda artists have labeled something as belonging in the "wrong group", you'll fight it all the way, regardless of it's actual merits.


Our way of healthcare is simply much more cost-efficient than yours. DEAL WITH IT.

[PLAYER57832]

greekdog.. after listening to the news, got a better example of government efficiency.. Weather forecasting.

And, historically, in healthcare, it was the government that got rid of smallpox, polio, found cures for malaria, etc, etc. Seems they have made pretty good strides on cancer, too.

[thegreekdog]

BP, Halliburton.

Please feel free to elaborate. Remember - the question is how these particular companies stepped in for something the government "normally" does. This is not about how they are evil corporate polluters.

Except, the "why" matters, because as much as I know that some police officers are corrupt, that does not mean I think we need the police to be disbanded and turned over to private security forms to police us.

The police is a different matter. What I'm suggesting is that you and I have more control over private entities than we do over the federal government.

No, in fact it was not ignored by me at all. I addressed it earlier, in another thread where that was the topic. It was an incredibly irrresponsible plan. It had nothing to do with saving Medicare or providing more insurance to more people. It was about saving businesses money, and leaving millions in even worse shape then they are now, when they can at least hope for Medicare when they get to be 65.

What you did in that thread was read that the Republicans had a plan and then apply what you think every Republican plan would do to that particular plan. You didn't read the plan. I'm fairly certain you didn't even read an op. ed. piece about the plan.

Your evidence?

Because it has not worked yet, anywhere.

There are two examples I can think of off the top of my head where private industry does a better job running things that the government also runs:

Postal service vs. Federal Express
Public schools vs. private schools

I cannot think of another thing that private industry runs that the government also runs.

Then you have no experience with Blue Cross/Blue shield, truly.

Oh but I do have experience. I have good experiences and bad experiences. The difference is that I chose to have that experience with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If I want to change, I have a limited amount of available options. Why is that, do you think?

The problem is too much influence from the insurance industry and other big businesses. So, it is utterly illogical that giving them more control, which IS what happens with all of your suggestions, would result in a better, more responsive system.

No, it's not illogical. The control I have over what I choose to use from private industry is much more powerful than the control I can assert over my own elected representative. I can't boycott the federal government. I can't report the federal government to the Better Business Bureau. I can't choose to work for a different federal government. The only recourse I have is to vote between two people who basically believe that I should have no voice and to write letters that are read by low-level staffers and trashed.

[PLAYER57832]

BP, Halliburton.

Please feel free to elaborate. Remember - the question is how these particular companies stepped in for something the government "normally" does. This is not about how they are evil corporate polluters.

Halliburton is a major contractor in Iraq. Does the term "Blackwater" ring a bell? They took over food services, many other support roles that previously were handled by the army itself. (just to name ONE area of encroachment!) Sometimes (particularly in the "show" places) they did a moderately better job (somewhat better food, etc.. although that may have as much to do with advances in transport and so forth rather than the fact that Halliburton is private), but they cost us a LOT more.

The IRS privatizing collections is another example.. that is particularly bad because not only did they cost the taxpayers more, but took far less care to ensure that the actions taken were just and fair. Again, that last is one of the "dirty secrets" per why government is "less efficient". Government agencies almost always have much tighter rules regarding how they deal with people (the military and security issues are a different matter, of course).

I could go on and on and on, but no, it is not just a matter of the "big bad corporations".

ALSO, the key element in both the BP/Halliburton disaster and Massy Energy (sp? - -the big coal disaster) was failure of the government to oversee. Why? Because the regulatory agencies are far too much "in bed with" big business AND because the moves to cut costs mean a lot of those agencies have been stripped.

(this is part of why I mean when I say that big business is not assessed true costs.. they should pay themselves for the regulatory oversight necessary to ensure their businesses don't kill people, pollute our water, etc...b ut they in no way do).

Except, the "why" matters, because as much as I know that some police officers are corrupt, that does not mean I think we need the police to be disbanded and turned over to private security forms to police us.

The police is a different matter. What I'm suggesting is that you and I have more control over private entities than we do over the federal government. [/quote]I strongly disagree. Donald Trump might have more say. You and I.. do not.

And again, you make it pretty clear you have not dealt seriously with insurance companies lately.. or that you happen to have one of the elite insuranceo plans that mean you get treated far better than most of us do/have been. But.. ask this. What happens to you and your family if either you get laid off your job OR the company for which you work decides to downgrade their insurance policy because the current one "costs too much".. and, if your answer is "I will just get another job"..well, if that works (not saying it won't), then you are far more fortunate than a good many people.

No, in fact it was not ignored by me at all. I addressed it earlier, in another thread where that was the topic. It was an incredibly irrresponsible plan. It had nothing to do with saving Medicare or providing more insurance to more people. It was about saving businesses money, and leaving millions in even worse shape then they are now, when they can at least hope for Medicare when they get to be 65.

What you did in that thread was read that the Republicans had a plan and then apply what you think every Republican plan would do to that particular plan. You didn't read the plan. I'm fairly certain you didn't even read an op. ed. piece about the plan.

OK, provide me a link, then.

Your evidence?

Because it has not worked yet, anywhere.

There are two examples I can think of off the top of my head where private industry does a better job running things that the government also runs:

Postal service vs. Federal Express

Postal service is no longer truly public. Before, it worked wonderfully. The private version has not been able to keep up with changes, primarily due to the internet, etc. However, you also have to realize that the goal of the postal service is to allow for reasonable access of information and communication. That is quite a different goal than cost-effectiveness. Many areas are simply not served by Federal Express well. I mean, sure, I can GET Federal Express, but to ship it? I have to drive some distance.

Public schools vs. private schools

Absolutely untrue and I truly wish you would quite bringing that one up.

Private schools are only better because they dont deal with the same issues as public schools. As a matter of fact, my fully public school gave me an education FAR superior to what any of the local private schools recieve. Granted, I was fortunate, however, so is anyone able to attend a private school.

Whenever you judge public schools on an equal basis to private schools, public schools come out well ahead. Also, public schools allow kids to learn in a more objective and open environment, free of religious influence, etc... Granted, it can get twisted, but just look at the rise of Creationism to see what a threat non-universal public education can be.

I cannot think of another thing that private industry runs that the government also runs.

I can...see the list in the beginning of this post.

Also add in: Prisons, parks, biological research, medical research, etc, etc, etc.

Then you have no experience with Blue Cross/Blue shield, truly.

Oh but I do have experience. I have good experiences and bad experiences. The difference is that I chose to have that experience with Blue Cross/Blue Shield. If I want to change, I have a limited amount of available options. Why is that, do you think?

Because insurance companies have created that system, because you are not the customer, your employer is and because, barring government regulation limits, there is no incentive for insurance companies to provide any real coverage any longer. Because the cost of medical care has gotten so expensive that no insurance company wants to cover any but the youngest, healthiest people except where they are required to offer it by law.

Note: That is why we have Medicare, because most insurance companies did not want to cover seniors.. it worked! It worked too well and other people, besides seniors were added, costs were not increased. Now, those same "brilliant" people are happy to just throw the whole system under the bus, rather than being honest and saying we need to increase contributions and begin setting some reasonable limits to what is offered. Instead, they offer "pretend" solutions that only seem to be about preserving the system, but are really about just cutting the immediate taxpayer bill.. at the expense of all of us who will eventually need the program. EXACTLY the kind of "thinking" that got us into this debt mess from the start!

The problem is too much influence from the insurance industry and other big businesses. So, it is utterly illogical that giving them more control, which IS what happens with all of your suggestions, would result in a better, more responsive system.

No, it's not illogical. The control I have over what I choose to use from private industry is much more powerful than the control I can assert over my own elected representative.

Companies still cannot vote. You can. The trouble is, too few people are willing to just listen to the latest advertisements, instead of reading through lengthy discussions or ideas. If you think private industry doesn't and won't continue to take advantage of that, I am not sure where you get the evidence that leads you to that conclusion.

I can't boycott the federal government. I can't report the federal government to the Better Business Bureau.

The Better Business Bureau has no enforcement ability. In both cases, you can sue if the situation is bad enough. However, per the government.. you can vote people out of office. Except, as I noted, when people would rather listen to the slick advertisements of corporation-supported interest groups, than take the time to read more boring real information.. we get what we have. This is why citizen's united was such a disasterous ruling and why it absolutely has and will impact future elections. Unless the American public suddenly gets more intelligent.

I can't choose to work for a different federal government. The only recourse I have is to vote between two people who basically believe that I should have no voice and to write letters that are read by low-level staffers and trashed.

Most people don't really and truly have a choice for whom they work, not really.. not if they want to keep feeding their families. Anyway, you CAN very much decide to work for a citizen's group, to work for a state or yes, even to go work for another country. However, just try buying a lot of stuff from someplace other than Walmart in much of rural America.

[thegreekdog]

Halliburton is a major contractor in Iraq. Does the term "Blackwater" ring a bell? They took over food services, many other support roles that previously were handled by the army itself. (just to name ONE area of encroachment!) Sometimes (particularly in the "show" places) they did a moderately better job (somewhat better food, etc.. although that may have as much to do with advances in transport and so forth rather than the fact that Halliburton is private), but they cost us a LOT more.

Can provide some specific links as to how Haliburton did a worse job than the federal government would have done? Was Haliburton inefficient? Or were Haliburton's inefficiencies a result of the way government contracting works? And can Haliburton really be considered a private entity with respect to these services given the close relationship it had with the government? For what it's worth, I'm not advocating that the government contract work out to private companies.

The IRS privatizing collections is another example.. that is particularly bad because not only did they cost the taxpayers more, but took far less care to ensure that the actions taken were just and fair. Again, that last is one of the "dirty secrets" per why government is "less efficient". Government agencies almost always have much tighter rules regarding how they deal with people (the military and security issues are a different matter, of course).

Ths IRS privatizes collections?

ALSO, the key element in both the BP/Halliburton disaster and Massy Energy (sp? - -the big coal disaster) was failure of the government to oversee. Why? Because the regulatory agencies are far too much "in bed with" big business AND because the moves to cut costs mean a lot of those agencies have been stripped.

Okay, I agree with all of that. So what can you, Player, do about it? From a federal government perspective you could vote for the guy who would provide for more stringent regulations on off-shore drilling (which may or may not have prevented the BP oil spill). What guarantee do you have that the person you vote for would provide those effective and stringent regulations? You could also refuse to purchase BP oil. I think the boycotting of BP by a large contingent of Americans would have a better effect on whether BP takes precautions with drilling than voting for a group of politicians who will receive campaign donations from BP and thus no incentive to provide effective regulations.

What happens to you and your family if either you get laid off your job OR the company for which you work decides to downgrade their insurance policy because the current one "costs too much".. and, if your answer is "I will just get another job"..well, if that works (not saying it won't), then you are far more fortunate than a good many people.

My insurance policy has been "downgraded" in each of the last three years. And my wife deals with our insurance company regularly. The answer to your question is that my choice is limited to three bad plans... not 50 plans... not 500 plans... three. Why is that, do you think?

And yes, I will just get another job. And it's not just because I'm lucky.

OK, provide me a link, then.

Why? You won't read it. You didn't read it the last two times I posted it.

Absolutely untrue and I truly wish you would quite bringing that one up.

Private schools are only better because they dont deal with the same issues as public schools. As a matter of fact, my fully public school gave me an education FAR superior to what any of the local private schools recieve. Granted, I was fortunate, however, so is anyone able to attend a private school.

Whenever you judge public schools on an equal basis to private schools, public schools come out well ahead. Also, public schools allow kids to learn in a more objective and open environment, free of religious influence, etc... Granted, it can get twisted, but just look at the rise of Creationism to see what a threat non-universal public education can be.

Preposterous nonsense. You're saying private schools are better because they don't deal with the same issues as public schools. Why? Why don't they deal with the same issues? What is this equal basis you speak of?

I can...see the list in the beginning of this post.

Also add in: Prisons, parks, biological research, medical research, etc, etc, etc.

Okay now let's talk about equal playing fields. I have a private biological research company. Am I on an equal playing field with the federal government? Of course not, because I have to deal with regulations administered and enforced by the entity I'm competing with. I have to pay taxes to the entity I'm competing with.

Because insurance companies have created that system, because you are not the customer, your employer is and because, barring government regulation limits, there is no incentive for insurance companies to provide any real coverage any longer. Because the cost of medical care has gotten so expensive that no insurance company wants to cover any but the youngest, healthiest people except where they are required to offer it by law.

Yes, insurance companies and THE FEDERAL FREAKING GOVERNMENT created this problem. The cost of medical care is expensive because insurance companies have made it expensive (and Medicare has made it expensive). I have compared medical bills where the patient had insurance, where the patient had Medicare, and where the patient had neither (i.e. paid cash). Can you believe that the cheapest medical bills by far were those where the patient paid cash? And the most expense bills were those paid by Medicare? Why do you think that is? Do you think it's because the federal government subsidizes healthcare? Do you think it's because the federal government subsidizes and protects insurance companies? But hey, let's look to the federal government to solve the problem.

Stuff about voting

Sorry, I couldn't quote right here.

You missed my entire point. This discussion/argument will continue as long as you keep missing the point. Here is the point, briefly:

The federal government is run by people who take money, in the form of campaign donations, from the rich, special interest groups, and companies. Most of this money is given without regard to the political leanings of the candidate. The people who run the federal government are either elected or appointed by those that are elected.

If Congressman Smith wants to get re-elected he will have to build his campaign warchest. He does this through campaign donations from the rich, special interest groups, and companies. He takes money from Microsoft, the Teachers' Union, and the state Chamber of Commerce. He runs advertisements with this money saying he'll tax the shit out of Microsoft and bust up the Teachers' Union. Everyone votes for him and he wins in a landslide. When he gets into office, he doesn't tax the shit out of Microsoft and he doesn't bust up the Teachers' Union. People write him letters. They are ignored. When he runs again, his opponent promises to tax the shit out of Microsoft and bust up the Teachers' Union. Do you see where I'm going with this? For the love of pearl, our current president was elected to do a few things: (1) fix the economy, (2) provide health insurance or healthcare to all Americans, and (3) end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The economy is still broken. Health insurance and healthcare remain unavailable to millions of Americans despite the Affordable Care Act. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue unabated and we are now involved in other Middle East conflicts. And guess what? He'll get re-elected. So, do you really have a voice in government? Does it even matter?

[PLAYER57832]

"You have to log in to view that page"
grrrr...
I took the time to type a real response to the above, but forgot to copy it before hitting submit and.. its gone.

I don't have the energy to do it over right now, but I will post this link per Haliburton (just the first one I found when looking), though not the comments I had originally posted with it.

I will say that I copied only the first and last sections, for brevity. (the problem and answer, essentially), however I am providing the link to the article itself.

We have a hard time resisting when people on national television ask us to fact-check them.

The latest instance began with Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, talking on ABC's This Week about the causes of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"The truth is that right now we have precisely the regulatory system that the Bush-Cheney Administration wanted -- full of loopholes, full of cronies and lobbyists filling the very agencies they're supposed to be overseeing," she said, adding a bit later, "Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton (was) involved in this, and we haven't said (anything) about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here's Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer (of) hundreds of millions of dollars is involved again..."

That's when conservative pundit Liz Cheney interrupted.

"Arianna, I don't know what planet you live on ..." she said, starting interruptions and crosstalk that finally ended with this:

Cheney: "Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government --"

Huffington: "It did. It did."

Cheney: "-- that it was Bush-Cheney cronyism -- these are the left's talking points --"

Huffington: "It did -- hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq."

Cheney: "Arianna, it is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true."

Huffington: "Okay, I'm so glad PolitiFact is going to be checking this. I'm so glad."

Cheney: "Good, good."

In evaluating Huffington's statement, we're most bothered by her use of the word "defrauded." Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined.

"It's a lot money being spent in a region of the world where we don't have a lot of infrastructure for accounting for how the money is being spent. It will take years before we fully determine how we spent the money," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

In ruling on Huffington's statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton's KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied. Government audits of KBR's work in Iraq will likely continue for some time, and we do not expect a final accounting on these fronts anytime soon. Huffington glossed over some of these points in her back and forth with Liz Cheney. There's also much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud. So we rate Huffington's statement Half True.

Link to full article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... history-s/

[PLAYER57832]

PS... stilll awaiting the link you claim I never viewed, but this idea of his that a right to healthcare means you can just go in to his house and demand to be treated is idiotic.

Most people would say we have a right to eat. In times of war, other dire circumstances, the government CAN come in and ration, take possession of farms and such if needed. They have and will. It is considered fully legal, the farmers (or whatever) are generally compensated and the right has been firmly upheld.

Healthcare is no different. Or, is he suggesting that it is in such a poor state in this country that the public need is to have him and every other doctor be forced to treat people? If so, then we are in even worse shaep than most people suggest.. and the answer is most definitely NOT anything he has suggested!

And.. his comment about the ER is equally idiotic. First, it IS the law that he must treat people with life-threatening cases in the ER, and it is the law because else some doctors would refuse. In fact, truth be told, many do find ways out of that (beginning with just not practicing in an ER at all to dumping patients, etc.).

OH... a PS. when I used to have a med sticker on my car, I always knew I could be pulled over at any wreck, etc.

[thegreekdog]

You're confusing Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. They are vastly different from a political perspective. Paul Ryan is a traditional Republican who wants the government to run your life. Rand Paul wants you to run your own life.

Paul Ryan is the person who has the health insurance plan. Rand Paul is the one who is trolling everyone by saying universal healthcare is akin to indentured servitude.

[natty dread]

Damn Americans... why you got to have names that can be either first names or last names??? No wonder people get confused, LOL.

[Mr_Adams]

Hey now, we also have crap like "Blagojevich" hanging around. We call him Blago. (Bläg-ō)