Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,772 Responses
- ukit0
http://www.lvrj.com/news/breakin…
Reid: Final health bill will have a 'public option'
"We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents.
- i had the chance to rap with a reid pupil. that guy disgusts me. and the mindset that goes with such learnin********
- who is this pupil? If he works in Politics you should be willing to share his name.Josev
- i had the chance to rap with a reid pupil. that guy disgusts me. and the mindset that goes with such learnin
- eieio0
So do you think people are going to treat the public option opters like they treat people unfortunate enough to be on welfare as like moochers and lazy or will this be deemed a respectable and viable option for everyone ?
- Why would they? They're paying for it.Mimio
- they pay premiums, dipshitBonSeff
- Yes some will, regardless of the fact that it's not free and people will still have to pay for their health insurance.IRNlun6
- Just like people hate their grandparents because they are on Medicare? C'mon...ukit
- Not saying it's warranted but just look at the virulent rhetoric now. It's not going away once they pass a public option.IRNlun6
- That wasn't directed at you but still...no one is going to be able to tell what insurance you have, so it's kind of a moot pointukit
- my bad... yeah, I agree with you ukit.IRNlun6
- ukit0
eieo, I think the more relevant question is whether having a public option will help drive down the overall cost. According to the CBO, which hasn't been all that friendly to Dem plans in the past, it will - significantly.
How would anyone know or care who was on a public option by the way? Can you name which insurance your friends use?
- the more relevant question is how is this being paid for?johndiggity
- no a public option wont control cost. public option has nothing to do with cost. it has to do with votes********
- everything tryign to be implemented doesnt focus on overall costs at all.********
- better question john is to ask who get to decide who pays for it********
- ********0
u know on the healthcare cost thing i think all you have to look at is the cost if u paid for a kid out of pocket or if u paid for one with insurance. look at cost out of pocket vs overall cost paid by insurer. something is extremely messed up.
- ********0
Looks like conservatives finally have a foothold up in this shit-hole of a thread... congrats deathboy, and McWoozy... suck me to the rest of you liberal fuck-tards.
- hey angry i appreciate the encouragement and a lot of what you say but id rather not be labeled a conservative********
- the labels only fucks up people ability to see the truth. and turns shit into high school politics.********
- im about the truth, and truths people know but refuse to recognize because theyd rather not********
- but im sure you get it, im saying it for the rest of the crowd.********
- Relax turbo. Those who are not destined to the truth movement have shown no destiny.********
- i know im just saying it for the crowd. i hate all parties because no party can represent an individual. its collective philosophy********
- philosophy. and since so many people are persuaded by it i just wanted to nip it in the heels********
- hey angry i appreciate the encouragement and a lot of what you say but id rather not be labeled a conservative
- BattleAxe0
WTF is really going on in Afghanistan?
"At least 14 Americans have been killed in a series of air crashes in Afghanistan, military officials say."
- ********0
http://reason.com/archives/2009/…
Tragedy “resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things,” declared philosopher Alfred North Whitehead in Science and the Modern World (1925). And few things are more tragic in the policy world than the current spectacle of private health insurers destroying their industry, and along with it, hope for a future of dynamic and innovative medical care. In just a few short days, shortsighted actions by the health insurance industry and its lobbyists have resurrected congressional proposals for a government-run health insurance scheme, the so-called public option....
- eieio0
Someone explain to me the argument that says non-private healthcare destroys innovation please. There's still plenty of money being invested in it internationally not just in the US, still plenty of need for better technology and fewer reasons to cut corners for private profit margins. Sounds like another excuse.
- actually if u look at other countries theyre behind on innovation. ill see if i can find a link rather then explain********
- but explain to me the argument, you can spin examples all you wanteieio
- what about non-private health care makes it less innovative ? Use logic if you can.eieio
- incentives. to what gain is there to create new procedures and recoup the research losses********
- some examples do work some dont, but overall you end up with less innovation. if u get paid the same to be at work for 8 or 10 hours which do u choose********
- the reality in socialized countries is that the gov. takes on the burden of the publics actual health. They invest billions of tax dollars.eieio
- 8 or 10 hours which would you choose. really u have to weigh out such actions and look if there is still incentive********
- would a gov already spending liek 20% of budget on a public healthcare try to spend another ten on risky technology, when there jobs are on the line********
- ...huge amounts of tax dollars in health because it lessons the cost in the long run.eieio
- their jobs are on the line. some instances a smart person may push for something that pays off but most of the time they wont********
- Canada is a hugely valuable healthcare market, ask my uncle who sells health supllies there, just sold the company for 10 mileieio
- 10 mil.eieio
- the gov. doesn't feel compelled to spend on 'risky technology' because it wants the stuff that works.eieio
- wont. it undoubtedly will stifle innovation.********
- they also dish out money for research and innovation for their own healthcare's system's sakeeieio
- thats non argument. No incentives to innovate have been lost in Canada at all.eieio
- damn didnt see u talking...but risky technology is what leads to innovation********
- no risky tech leads to more problems, healthcare depends on consistency and stabilityeieio
- how many people come to us from canada to have latest treatments?********
- you make those two things better you innovate.eieio
- stability and consistency means no innovation pretty much********
- they go there because they have money, latest treatments can mean cosmetic or conveinienceeieio
- doesn't mean Canada is somehow behind just means USA happens to offer certain serviceseieio
- no you lose lives without those twoeieio
- anyway Canada has no shortage of money being invested in innovation in healthcare, its highly dynamic and profitableeieio
- actually if u look at other countries theyre behind on innovation. ill see if i can find a link rather then explain
- ********0
damn getting to long to refresh for....
latest treatment doesnt mean cosmetic or convenience. it means latest treatment in cosmetic's or in ability to make something be more convenient then its older process. latest treatment usually means more advanced or new. the US new innovative tech usually trickles down to other countries 3-5 years after its worked out. i think its pretty common sense that a purely EUish plan would stifle competition. Its pretty much proven as using the example. Not in all cases but in the majority. The long run. A public plan does take away in actual incentive and becomes political. People compete for funds through connections rather then progress or results.
- they only go to USA because its convenient and they can afford it not because Canada is missing somethingeieio
- eieio0
The innovation doesn't come from the government it comes from the companies that make the tech. Gov. WANT RESULTS because it lessons the cost ! Canada has better regulations around technology, this is partly why people in Canada go to the USA because the new tech doesn't pass the regulations, so they take a risk and spend shit loads. My point being Canada has a a huge healthcare market place and some of the most advanced healthcare tech companies in the world thanks to all the money around and that leads to proper forms of innovation that benefit the healthcare system itself as opposed to corporate interests. Its more efficient and effective healthcare and subsequently more innovative.
- i remember i used to work for a flashlight company that provided powerful flashlights for gov. took in about 10 mil for 2 flashlights********
- 2 flashlights. was that innovative, was it worth it. the cost for such innovation on an endless tax supply is unsustainable********
- unsustainable.********
- u take out responsibility and plac eit on everyone and no one and u get disaster. who is accountable for the medicare ponzi scheme?********
- ponzi scheme.********
- thats not even a point, expensive lightbulbs...mmm keieio
- no it is definitly important im displaying how to milk the system with promises of innovation********
- i remember i used to work for a flashlight company that provided powerful flashlights for gov. took in about 10 mil for 2 flashlights
- ********0
and hey eieio whats up with the healthcare plans for kids in canada. i know a canadian catholic chick who has like 50 cousins. Her family doesn't practice birth control and doesn't care because their is no initial costs (and religion says its bad because it cuts their numbers). How does canada expect to sustain when they pay for so many kids. Is it even sustainable now. Personal responsibility has to play a role to keep a balance of whats sustainable. Not to mention canadian economics is different then US's. You dont have to deal with all the war big brother shit the US has been a part of forever and has played parts in our economics. To get better pricing on healthcare the US doesnt need to try to mimic a system of other countries but to identify the problems first and work on those. A big one is that everyone depends on insurance. Think if everyone treated auto insurance the way they do health insurance. Imagine the total costs of an oil change. People need to change their mindset and maybe focus on more only detrimental insurance policies, but there isnt any because so many do the whole package deal because its subsidized through their employers. Its an issue that would resolve itself if the rules of the game were to be lifted by those who impose them. Not saying all rules and their is no magical formula, peopel jsut have to be smart in implementation and ability to adapt to market forces and guide it in the right path, however our current politicans are not smart enough to do so and dont care to do so because theyre focused on maintaining there jobs/power/money and such.
- ukit0
I think you are simplifying too much, for sure you need innovation and the best way to achieve that is the private market. But inventing new drugs and treatments isn't the only goal, there is also the part of the industry that delivers that service in the real world.
It's not like the guy who writes you a Viagra prescription at your local clinic then drives off to a lab somewhere in the evening and slaves trying to find a cure for cancer. Same industry, different jobs, different field altogether.
And that's the part the government can play a role in.
- i.e., basic delivery of servicesukit
- of course its simplified its liek a paragraph. but the gov involvement is one main reason why the cost is so high...********
- take away medicare ss and medicaid and what is the total spending...********
- ********0
Good information for people who are still getting their news from FOX, CNN or other wannabe main stream media sources.
- ********0
You're either in support of Marxism
or
You're in support of Freedom and Liberty
You can't have both.
- ********0
"Those who are not destined to the truth movement have shown to have a different destiny."
Fred McWoozy
- ********0
lets say i run a medical company that patented a successful drug that is now out of date. i have 200 employees and need a new drug to keep the business running. I have no ideas or leads on something new that would be successful. instead of going belly up i buy into the public option and lobby for tax dollars on a new innovative drug to senators that know nothing about pharma. i assure them for 10 billion this drug will revolutionize something. grease a few palms and i can get funding and make plenty of money for ten years. Within 8 years i place blame on someone for bad results and secure another 10 billion to do a newer better drug trial..... this kinda shit is happening already but imagine in a solely gov ran system. when BS and connections secure more funds then intelligent investors and results what would you do. not to mention the competing for tax funds when you know you have a good product vs the others who are spending all there time scheming for the funds. talk about confidence killer too great minds.
- you're just articulating some sort of negative hypothetical fantasyeieio
- oh and id use the employees as guilt trips to grease hands in the state im in.********
- its negative but its human nature********
- eieio0
yall ever hear of a social democracy?
- ukit0
That's not what the public option is. Not even close;)
