ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

without profit, how can you hire another employee? pay taxes? pay an electric/heating bill? pay rent? add a wing to the building? afford an increase in health insurance premiums or unemployment insurance? Advertise?

???

nice try at diversion.
Not everything should be put to the "free" market. Profit doesn't pay those things. They are expenses. Government entities pay most of those. In some cases, even taxes (narrow exceptins). they generally don't advertise, which is why you and others have such a highly distorted view of it, though.

[GreecePwns]

without profit, how can you hire another employee? pay taxes? pay an electric/heating bill? pay rent? add a wing to the building? afford an increase in health insurance premiums or unemployment insurance? Advertise?

???

Let's look at it from your wallet's perspective.

Given two plans, a public and a private one, offering the same level of care using the same procedures, which one will cost you less? If you answer private, in any instance, you are incorrect. Because at its best, Medicare made a 4 percent profit, while comparable plans from private insurers average around 30 percent.

Taking out the need to advertise and the need to deal with giving shareholders a dividend takes out that 30 percent overhead almost entirely. Last time I checked, Medicare certainly wasn't in the healthcare industry to make money.

Disclaimer: I am not endorsing Medicare in this post. I am endorsing something that goes far further and is far more efficient economically.

[Woodruff]

I gotta call out a greedy person when I see it.

That should be easy - surely you've got a mirror in your house?

[Night Strike]

Given two plans, a public and a private one, offering the same level of care using the same procedures, which one will cost you less? If you answer private, in any instance, you are incorrect. Because at its best, Medicare made a 4 percent profit, while comparable plans from private insurers average around 30 percent.

And Medicare would be losing about 15-20% every year if they were actually paying doctors the amount they're supposed to be paid. When doctors only recuperate 80% of the actual costs of their time/procedures, then it actually the doctors who are forced to pay more in the system. Furthermore, private insurance companies have to make up these costs, doctors have to get paid less than they're worth, or doctors have to stop helping Medicare patients all together. Maybe if Medicare would stop rigging the system, there could actually be fair comparisons instead of these contrived talking points in favor of an even larger government.

[GreecePwns]

You didn't read my disclaimer. I advocate the far more economically efficient French system, where doctors get paid 1/6th of what doctors are paid here, but get free education even through graduate school, and are the happiest doctors in the world working in what is widely considered the best healthcare system in the world.

No, the free market is not more efficient than that system. No matter what, the private insurance is in it for profit and the public insurance is not. For the same quality of care, the increase in taxes required to pay for public healthcare is less than your medical bill for that reason alone. If this were a manufactured good, then we could talk about the merits of a free market. But this isn't, and there isn't a limited supply of health insurance, so we shouldn't treat it like there is.

As if your "larger government" quip wasn't a contrived talking point. Throwing out economics in the name of your version of freedom is petty at best. If a free market system is so much better, you could point to empirical evidence to show a correlation between freedom of the health insurance market and costs of healthcare as a percent of GDP. Instead, the opposite occurs. C'mon man, why do you think nations even more conservative than us in Japan and Korea don't even have as free a health insurance market as we do?

(I know I edited this a lot, but that's because my phone is dumb and submits when I don't want to).

[PLAYER57832]

Given two plans, a public and a private one, offering the same level of care using the same procedures, which one will cost you less? If you answer private, in any instance, you are incorrect. Because at its best, Medicare made a 4 percent profit, while comparable plans from private insurers average around 30 percent.

And Medicare would be losing about 15-20% every year if they were actually paying doctors the amount they're supposed to be paid. When doctors only recuperate 80% of the actual costs of their time/procedures, then it actually the doctors who are forced to pay more in the system. Furthermore, private insurance companies have to make up these costs, doctors have to get paid less than they're worth, or doctors have to stop helping Medicare patients all together Maybe if Medicare would stop rigging the system, there could actually be fair comparisons instead of these contrived talking points in favor of an even larger government.

The downward spiral is led as much or more by Blue Cross/Blue Shield than government. To the extent it IS the government, it is about saving taxpayers taxes.. one of your chief cries.

The Fact is we need limits on healthcare coverage. Honest, up front limits. However, instead of that you want to both blame Medicare and Medicaid when they cut costs and then act as if nothing the insurance companies do matters because they operate under some kind of "free market." The don't actually, but you want to pretend they do.

[Phatscotty]

Player, you might find interest to learn that Atlas Shrugged is not only about what is wrong with big government, but also what is wrong with big corporations.

Corporations are not always bad, and certainly not all insurance companies that make a profit are bad. You shouldn't lump them all together in your crusade against profits. Believe me I hear what you are saying and respect the principle that healthcare should not make a profit, or at least not a ton of profit, but the delivery system is not the only part of the healthcare industry. We want the surgeons to have new equipment that does new things better than before. We want a pill what will take away the pain of arthritis or high cholesterol with less side effects than before. Likewise we want there to be a reason for people to take risk and find a better way and to make it work, so that then it can be available.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, you might find interest to learn that Atlas Shrugged is not only about what is wrong with big government, but also what is wrong with big corporations.

Corporations are not always bad, and certainly not all insurance companies that make a profit are bad. You shouldn't lump them all together in your crusade against profits. Believe me I hear what you are saying and respect the principle that healthcare should not make a profit, or at least not a ton of profit, but the delivery system is not the only part of the healthcare industry. We want the surgeons to have new equipment that does new things better than before. We want a pill what will take away the pain of arthritis or high cholesterol with less side effects than before. Likewise we want there to be a reason for people to take risk and find a better way and to make it work, so that then it can be available.

Except none of that is at risk by offering true universal health coverage. ALL of it is at risk by a system so dragged down that most people cannot afford to go to the doctor until its almost a life-threatening emergency, at which point no one gets denied.

[Night Strike]

In a bombshell accusation, the government watchdog group Judicial Watch announced today that the Obama administration used taxpayer money to help orchestrate an internet search engine manipulation campaign specifically promoting Obamacare.

Judicial Watch obtained 2,328 pages of records pursuant to a March 23, 2011, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The FOIA information included correspondence between the Department of Health and Human Services and the Ogilvy Group, the public relations fire hired by the White House to push Obamacare on the American people.

Judicial Watch listed the following as major points of interest from the FOIA request (all bullets quoted):

The Obama HHS launched a campaign to track Internet searches and to use online search engines such as Google and Yahoo to drive traffic to a government website promoting Obama’s healthcare overhaul. Using “pay-per-click” advertising tools, such as Google Adwords, HHS purposely targeted for influence people searching the term “Obamacare,” a word that has been described as “disparaging” by political agents of the president.
According to a budget summary prepared by Ogilvy, from October 2010 through February 2011, the Obama administration spent $1,435,009 on these online advertisements alone, including advertising campaigns with Google and Yahoo, almost $300,000 per month.
A number of documents address the need to target the Obamacare propaganda campaign to Hispanics, blacks, and women. For example, according to an email from Chris Beakey, Vice President of Ogilvy PR Worldwide, to HHS officials on December 16, 2010, summarizing a conference call, “You want to utilize the bulk of their paid media efforts (which would include expenditures for Radio One and Univision) on media that reaches African Americans and Hispanics. The money will go farther and these audiences continue to be a top priority.”
A January 18, 2011, email from Ogilvy to HHS New Media Communications Director Julia Eisman notes with respect to a Spanish banner ad campaign, “I realize we really can’t use the blond mom and child for this audience.”

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton believes strongly that the information above amounts to dishonest tactics by the White House, and perhaps even illegal ones. Fitton wrote on the Judicial Watch site:

“The American people should be disturbed that the Obama administration is using taxpayer funds to try to brainwash people simply searching the Internet for information on health care. This Big Brother campaign is underhanded, potentially unlawful, and it must be stopped. As the congressional ‘super-committee’ begins negotiations to cut the deficit, this wasteful Obamacare propaganda campaign is the first place they should look.”

There are even more relevant details-including the possibility that $200 million was spent on the Obamacare propaganda campaign in total, available here.

Despite all the time and (apparently taxpayer) money spent to pass the massive “Affordable Care Act” known as Obamacare, a number of Federal courts have struck down the bill on grounds that it is unconstitutional. A Supreme Court showdown for the signature legislative action of this administration appears inevitable.

But if Judicial Watch is correct, an official inquiry into the misuse of public funds could also be coming.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-white-house-funded-obamacare-internet-propaganda-campaign/

[Nobunaga]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

[Night Strike]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

Because the only way they get the news is by using those search engines??

[PLAYER57832]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

Because the only way they get the news is by using those search engines??

My question is why this.. directing to true information.. is considered wrong, but Google, Microsoft, etc, actually limiting information and targeting specific advertisements to people is "OK" in your mind?

I am not saying the above is OK. I would have to see more details. For example, if its a matter of making sure that the government websites will match Google criteria so that folks wnating information will actually get the real government information and not just a bunch of controversial blogs, then fine. If it is creating controversial blogs..then, no.

[Night Strike]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

Because the only way they get the news is by using those search engines??

My question is why this.. directing to true information.. is considered wrong, but Google, Microsoft, etc, actually limiting information and targeting specific advertisements to people is "OK" in your mind?

I am not saying the above is OK. I would have to see more details. For example, if its a matter of making sure that the government websites will match Google criteria so that folks wnating information will actually get the real government information and not just a bunch of controversial blogs, then fine. If it is creating controversial blogs..then, no.

Because they AREN'T directing to true information. The government is paying to display their propaganda points as the top search returns, not the factual critiques of their policies. The government should NEVER spend taxpayer money on propaganda (which is also why I'm against taxpayer funded elections).

[PLAYER57832]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

Because the only way they get the news is by using those search engines??

My question is why this.. directing to true information.. is considered wrong, but Google, Microsoft, etc, actually limiting information and targeting specific advertisements to people is "OK" in your mind?

I am not saying the above is OK. I would have to see more details. For example, if its a matter of making sure that the government websites will match Google criteria so that folks wnating information will actually get the real government information and not just a bunch of controversial blogs, then fine. If it is creating controversial blogs..then, no.

Because they AREN'T directing to true information. The government is paying to display their propaganda points as the top search returns, not the factual critiques of their policies. The government should NEVER spend taxpayer money on propaganda (which is also why I'm against taxpayer funded elections).

Except, it seems like your definition of "propaganda points" is not truth versus fiction, but your opinin versus anyone elses. THAT is the real point.

[Night Strike]

... I wonder why I'm not seeing this on the news...

...

Because the only way they get the news is by using those search engines??

My question is why this.. directing to true information.. is considered wrong, but Google, Microsoft, etc, actually limiting information and targeting specific advertisements to people is "OK" in your mind?

I am not saying the above is OK. I would have to see more details. For example, if its a matter of making sure that the government websites will match Google criteria so that folks wnating information will actually get the real government information and not just a bunch of controversial blogs, then fine. If it is creating controversial blogs..then, no.

Because they AREN'T directing to true information. The government is paying to display their propaganda points as the top search returns, not the factual critiques of their policies. The government should NEVER spend taxpayer money on propaganda (which is also why I'm against taxpayer funded elections).

Except, it seems like your definition of "propaganda points" is not truth versus fiction, but your opinin versus anyone elses. THAT is the real point.

No, it's that the government is using taxpayer money to influence what people are supposed to objectively be searching for.

[PLAYER57832]

My question is why this.. directing to true information.. is considered wrong, but Google, Microsoft, etc, actually limiting information and targeting specific advertisements to people is "OK" in your mind?

I am not saying the above is OK. I would have to see more details. For example, if its a matter of making sure that the government websites will match Google criteria so that folks wnating information will actually get the real government information and not just a bunch of controversial blogs, then fine. If it is creating controversial blogs..then, no.

Because they AREN'T directing to true information. The government is paying to display their propaganda points as the top search returns, not the factual critiques of their policies. The government should NEVER spend taxpayer money on propaganda (which is also why I'm against taxpayer funded elections).

Except, it seems like your definition of "propaganda points" is not truth versus fiction, but your opinion versus anyone elses. THAT is the real point.

No, it's that the government is using taxpayer money to influence what people are supposed to objectively be searching for.

IS it?

Because what you showed does not prove that. It shows that some people feel there might be an issue.. people who, by -the-way have serious issues with just about everything else Obama does. A call for investigation means just that.. something needs to be investigated, not that it is already proven.

AND.. as I noted, Google is already very MUCH influencing what people are supposed to be able to search for objectively. Again, if this is just an attempt to get around those existing bias' then there is no problem.

[Phatscotty]

It's too bad Obama has not earned the benefit of the doubt. If he were doing better on other areas, he might have it.

[Night Strike]

Except, it seems like your definition of "propaganda points" is not truth versus fiction, but your opinion versus anyone elses. THAT is the real point.

No, it's that the government is using taxpayer money to influence what people are supposed to objectively be searching for.

IS it?

Because what you showed does not prove that. It shows that some people feel there might be an issue.. people who, by -the-way have serious issues with just about everything else Obama does. A call for investigation means just that.. something needs to be investigated, not that it is already proven.

AND.. as I noted, Google is already very MUCH influencing what people are supposed to be able to search for objectively. Again, if this is just an attempt to get around those existing bias' then there is no problem.

So it's ok for the government to use taxpayer money to push one-sided propaganda simply because private entities also put out propaganda? In your endorsement of this path, you're also assuming that there are no private entities already putting out propaganda to support the government's positions without using taxpayer dollars. That assumption of yours is entirely false. There are TONS of groups that trumpet the administration's health care policies, including some not-so-subtle large media outlets. So using taxpayer money is completely unnecessary.

[spurgistan]

No, it's that the government is using taxpayer money to influence what people are supposed to objectively be searching for.

Just as a thought exercise, is somebody searching for "Obamacare," which is a mildly pejorative term to describe the American Care Act of 2010, actually objectively searching for information? Or are they most likely looking for information to back up a pre-existing hypothesis (I'm guessing, but something along the lines of '"Obamacare' is an illegal attempt to turn the US into Europe, and Europe sucks") I would argue that searching for "Obamacare" would get this searcher just the kind of anti-reform rants he or she wants, at the expense of milquetoast defenses of what amounts to milquetoast Medicare reform. Therefore, given that it ought to be government policy to tell the public what it's doing, and the supply of "Obamacare" articles that defend health-care reform is going to be slim (because we don't call it that) I think I could conceptually defend this.

[PLAYER57832]

[
So it's ok for the government to use taxpayer money to push one-sided propaganda simply because private entities also put out propaganda? In your endorsement of this path, you're also assuming that there are no private entities already putting out propaganda to support the government's positions without using taxpayer dollars. That assumption of yours is entirely false. There are TONS of groups that trumpet the administration's health care policies, including some not-so-subtle large media outlets. So using taxpayer money is completely unnecessary.

I think you are assuming this is what is happening based on the opinion of someone who is obviously very anti-Obama and have not bothered to even consider that there might be something else happening, such as what spurgistan suggests below.

AND.. freedom of information means people need to see truth. Too much of the garbage out there is so absolutely INCORRECT that yes, I think taxpayer dollars are well spent in sending out accurate information.

If you are allowed to spread lies unchallenged, and millions vote upon that lie, then we ALL are harmed. The only people who fear truth are those who have no truth to tell.

[Night Strike]

No, it's that the government is using taxpayer money to influence what people are supposed to objectively be searching for.

Just as a thought exercise, is somebody searching for "Obamacare," which is a mildly pejorative term to describe the American Care Act of 2010, actually objectively searching for information? Or are they most likely looking for information to back up a pre-existing hypothesis (I'm guessing, but something along the lines of '"Obamacare' is an illegal attempt to turn the US into Europe, and Europe sucks") I would argue that searching for "Obamacare" would get this searcher just the kind of anti-reform rants he or she wants, at the expense of milquetoast defenses of what amounts to milquetoast Medicare reform. Therefore, given that it ought to be government policy to tell the public what it's doing, and the supply of "Obamacare" articles that defend health-care reform is going to be slim (because we don't call it that) I think I could conceptually defend this.

It's the Affordable Care Act of 2010, not American. And I venture that very few on either side of the debate know the actual name of the Act as people on both sides primarily use Obamacare or Healthcare Reform. in 1993, the debate was also around Hillarycare, not whatever the Act's proper name was.

By the way, the government should only spend time and money linking to actual texts of acts and laws. The government should never be manipulating search engines to promote the talking points in favor of those laws.

[spurgistan]

Pretty sure the working nomenclature on the left is health-care reform. At the very least, you will never see a Democratic politician call it that, and maybe that's because nobody actually wants to talk about things that affect Medicare (see how many Republicans talk about that in the election run-up)
I did fuddle the name of the bill a bit, thanks.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khkjq7drGsM

Funny Dragnet/ObamaCare vid

[BigBallinStalin]

NOOOO! NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN!!

[Phatscotty]

NOOOO! NOT THIS THREAD AGAIN!!

Nudity!