The top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
market authors
selected for publication
Saturday, December 26 2009 |
02:24 EDT |
DJIA (DIA)
S&P 500 (SPY)
- Obama lashes out at health insurers in his weekly radio address, calling their efforts 'deceptive and dishonest.' "For decades, whenever we have tried to reform the system, the insurance companies have done everything in their considerable power to stop us," he said.
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See all
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This news story has 46 comments:
Yes, nationalized healthcare is socialism, but, so what? Private options lead to expense and uninsured Americans. The public option would lead to full insurance, access to the healthcare Americans deserve, and less wasteful discussion over cost and access. If Obama is socialist, so what? Socialism does work in Europe and can function in the US.
U.S. Customs? Arrogant, rude and very, very slow.
U.S. Postal Service? Slow and increasingly expensive.
The Internal Revenue Service? Draconian, arbitrary, capricious and stupid.
But we want to turn over our health care to these people?
On Oct 17 07:55 PM Fourpenny Guy wrote:
> The easiest solution in dealing with Healthcare in general, and the
> insurers in particular is to nationalize healthcare and eliminate
> private insurance. I am reminded of the first and only time Lenin
> allowed the Russian Congress to meet. He simply dissolved the congress.
> Healthcare is a right, not a choice, not an economic poker chip,
> and along with Energy and Finance, should be heavily regulated, if
> not outright nationalized.
>
> Yes, nationalized healthcare is socialism, but, so what? Private
> options lead to expense and uninsured Americans. The public option
> would lead to full insurance, access to the healthcare Americans
> deserve, and less wasteful discussion over cost and access. If Obama
> is socialist, so what? Socialism does work in Europe and can function
> in the US.
On Oct 17 07:55 PM Fourpenny Guy wrote:
> Yes, nationalized healthcare is socialism, but, so what? Private
> options lead to expense and uninsured Americans.
If you think you have seen private options, then you must be over 120 years old. The government has regulated healthcare since the 30's. Its government regulation that has lead to the expense, waste, and all the other problems. Get a clue and wake up.
> The public option
> would lead to full insurance, access to the healthcare Americans
> deserve, and less wasteful discussion over cost and access. If Obama
> is socialist, so what? Socialism does work in Europe and can function
> in the US.
Give me a break, public healthcare has not worked any place. I used to run a UK company and here are the facts you so conveniently ignore: We paid higher taxes for public healthcare our employees would not use, we paid for private healthcare for our employees because they would not work for us without it, it took months to get any care from the public healthcare system, we had a friend whose spouse was a doctor and who quit practicing because eventually his pay was reduced to less than $12.00/hour.
The problem is not the concept of national healthcare its the fact that it DOES NOT WORK anyplace anytime. Quit trying to make yourself feel good and think about the repercussions of your idiocy on elderly and poor. You are simply being selfish.
On Oct 17 08:53 PM The Geoffster wrote:
> Move to Europe.
Hallelujah!
TK
On Oct 17 08:28 PM carbonblack wrote:
> Mr. President for once if you have any honor, stop with the lies.
On Oct 17 07:55 PM Fourpenny Guy wrote:
> The easiest solution in dealing with Healthcare in general, and the
> insurers in particular is to nationalize healthcare and eliminate
> private insurance. I am reminded of the first and only time Lenin
> allowed the Russian Congress to meet. He simply dissolved the congress.
> Healthcare is a right, not a choice, not an economic poker chip,
> and along with Energy and Finance, should be heavily regulated, if
> not outright nationalized.
>
> Yes, nationalized healthcare is socialism, but, so what? Private
> options lead to expense and uninsured Americans. The public option
> would lead to full insurance, access to the healthcare Americans
> deserve, and less wasteful discussion over cost and access. If Obama
> is socialist, so what? Socialism does work in Europe and can function
> in the US.
On Oct 17 09:07 PM Teutonic Knight wrote:
> He is about to lock it in for good. With the Bill passed, and the
> some 20-30 million extra votes, he would aim to increase about 10%
> his plurality from that meager 52% to something like 58% - - - a
> virtual lock in for good, and the United States of America will forever
> be changed, for good, as well.
>
> Hallelujah!
>
> TK
No one has the right to enslave another.
Some say, "let the government pay the provider." But where does the government obtain the means to remunerate the provider? It confiscates it from those who produce goods and services that others demand. Money only serves as a medium of exchange. So for government to "pay" for socialized medicine, it must first enslave the healthcare profession by oppressing their right to choice, their right to contract, their right to compensation for services rendered, then it must enslave the remainder of the population (in the form of confiscation of goods & services, i.e., income) to pay for the capital equipment, research & development, and labor that all come together to create the health care industry.
A few bureaucrats do not have the mental capacity to effectively make decisions affecting the lives of millions. There is too much information for them to process, and some doubt as to whether or not they could even collect all the information required. Hayek referred to this as the "Knowledge Problem." www.econlib.org/librar...
There is also Dr. Max Gammon's "Law of Bureaucratic Displacement," which basically identifies the "progressive displacement of productive activity by non-productive and often counterproductive bureaucratic activity,"
which leads to ever increasing costs to the bureaucracy, and an ever decreasing level of care to the patient. www.adf.com.au/archive...
The shortcomings of socialized medicine are well known, and not so well publicized. Rationing, life threatening and life ending waits for exams and care, indifferent and incompetent care, a general dehumanization of the provider/patient relationship.
Advocating socialized medicine is to advocate oppression, suffering, and enslavement of the populace to the political whims of whoever is currently in power. Far from the enlightenment of individual freedom and opportunity that the U.S. was purportedly founded on.
It is right to mistrust regulation. However we cannot keep the system we have. It is not working for at least 20% of the population. Even more dire we are facing an unfunded entitlement on the order of 50 trillion for medicare. What we have now threatens to bankrupt the country or put retirees in dire circumstances.
Of course there will be push back from the entrenched interests. Nobody likes their source of income threatened. Criticizing this push back is correct. If the private sector wants to stave off socialization they need to come up with a workable solution. Status-quo isn't an answer.
> Give me a break, public healthcare has not worked any place. I used to run a UK company and here are the facts you so conveniently ignore: We paid higher taxes for public healthcare our employees would not use, we paid for private healthcare for our employees because they would not work for us without it
And this is how it should be .There has to be very cheap basic healthcare accessible to all. And then there should be private healthcare for extras, like faster better service. Denying helathcare to 20% of the population is not an answer.
The industry is ANTI free enterprise.
Regulate the industry like electric power - are they suffering?
Granted, there is a variation in costs for insurance - but if they don't play remove their cartel protection.
> The problem is that US health care is broken. High infant mortality,
> decreasing average life span, and even the average height of US citizens
> is declining. Many citizens are going without care altogether. All
> this and the highest per capita cost in the world to boot.
If US healthcare is broken, it is because of governmental intervention. Each state regulates the insurance industry within. Citizens of the states are forced to purchase coverage which they do not need. ( www.cahi.org/cahi_cont... ) Restoring the health consumer's freedom of choice would contribute to a lower premium expense.
They way countries collect and form statistics for infant mortality differ from country to country. Consider pajamasmedia.com/blog/.../
No significant evidence of declining life expectancy. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/...
Average height? - "Taller, but Fatter!"
usgovinfo.about.com/gi...
Some citizens choose not to purchase health insurance. Yet healthcare is available to all in the US. So available in fact, that some hospitals are going bankrupt because they must provide emergency care even to those who cannot afford it, e.g., the indigent, and the illegal immigrant. -- the result of Federal Law. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Some would have others believe that since health is such a large part of GDP, that costs are out of control. What is not addressed is the demand for healthcare as a consumer good, and its representation in the GDP numbers. In 2007 the GDP numbers for Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services slightly greater than the numbers for Health Care and Social Assistance, yet no one is clamoring for socialized "legal" care, are they? www.bea.gov/industry/g... The numbers sited by the advocates of socialized medicine mostly reflect the amount of health care services consumed.
Why the rush to impose a coercive socialist reform in the name of insuring 15.4% of the population? "Meanwhile, the number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 45.7 million in 2007 to 46.3 million in 2008, while the percentage remained unchanged at 15.4 percent." www.census.gov/Press-R...
Lastly, how the heck will it be paid for? The U.S. National debt is greater than $109,000 per tax payer, and greater than $38,000 per citizen. www.usdebtclock.org/ www.treasurydirect.gov...
If the real aim is to "remake" the U.S. in the individually oppressive socialist image, nationalized health care is certainly a step in that miserable direction.
It is soooo much worse. We want to turn our health care over to the VA Hospital.
On Oct 17 08:02 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:
> It's funny how most people's interactions with the U.S. government
> are horrible.
>
> U.S. Customs? Arrogant, rude and very, very slow.
>
> U.S. Postal Service? Slow and increasingly expensive.
>
> The Internal Revenue Service? Draconian, arbitrary, capricious and
> stupid.
>
> But we want to turn over our health care to these people?
Who is proposing that? You are delusional my good fellow. Please seek reality.
The vast majority of readers on this website are pro-business, but c’mon people... a society should be judged by how it treats its most needy. It’s not a question of socialism, capitalism or any “ism,” it’s about compassion and doing what’s right for the greater good.
As a dual Canadian/American citizen, I have experienced both countries’ healthcare firsthand. I’ve served in both militaries (USMC & the Canadian Grenadier Guards) and from my personal experience the Canadian system is by far superior.
Earlier this year I was in Vancouver and thought I was having a heart attack. I was rushed to the emergency room and within minutes of arriving was hooked up to an ECG and was attended to by multiple doctors. Turned out to be a false alarm, but guess how much I had to pay for all the attention... NOTHING! No company had to authorize my visit, no one asked me to pay anything, no one sent me a bill later one and I had first class service.
Those who scream the loudest have the most to lose. I pay less for my Canadian Insurance in taxes than my US co-workers do and I never need to worry about being rejected or turned away.
I can go to any walk-in clinic or hospital across the country and say “I’m sick, treat me” and I will get treated. If I have a simple cold or some non-life threatening ailment then I will have to wait a bit, but I know that I will not be forgotten and I know that there are people ahead of me who are sicker so they get seen first; I’m good with that.
The time has come for society to stand-up to these insurance behemoths and punch them in the face! No more fucking around, I have put my money where my mouth is because this is going to happen (I massively shorted some of the biggest healthcare providers)... hasta la vista suckers!
www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Can the doctors really say within 48 hours what the date of conception was? It sure didn't seem like that when I was pregnant.
Anyhow beware how you read numbers...statistics and lies...
check out what Canadians want you to know about thier healthcare
www.mackinac.org/artic...
On Oct 17 09:55 PM bricki wrote:
> The problem is that US health care is broken. High infant mortality,
> decreasing average life span, and even the average height of US citizens
> is declining. Many citizens are going without care altogether. All
> this and the highest per capita cost in the world to boot.
>
> It is right to mistrust regulation. However we cannot keep the system
> we have. It is not working for at least 20% of the population. Even
> more dire we are facing an unfunded entitlement on the order of 50
> trillion for medicare. What we have now threatens to bankrupt the
> country or put retirees in dire circumstances.
>
> Of course there will be push back from the entrenched interests.
> Nobody likes their source of income threatened. Criticizing this
> push back is correct. If the private sector wants to stave off socialization
> they need to come up with a workable solution. Status-quo isn't an
> answer.
The US is 29th in the world in infant mortality. Whatever measurement variations you propose won't make it look good.
You might find an argument that the decrease in US height measurements is not significant. However is irrefutable that West Europeans are have surpassed Americans in average height.
Life expectancy in the US is declining. Not significantly in aggregate country wide numbers but definitely in certain regions and populations like poor women.
You can attempt to blame the states for the problems but in fact the states with the most aggressive regulations often have the best results.
The current system is broken. 20% of the population is inadequately protected. We have huge unfunded liabilities.
Entrenched private insurers have failed to offer any alternatives. All they are doing is fighting to retain their status quo. That is not going to fix the problem.
Our biggest health cost today isn't doctors or medicine, its lawyers. The Obamacare bandwagon keeps on about "unnecessary tests and treatments", but not one thing said about reducing malpractice lawsuit use & abuse (like wrongful life suits when a doctor DOESN'T order every test in the book and the baby is born with a health problem). It's only an unnecessary test if it's negative, or right up until the patient gets the condition/illness/dise... and then the lawyers rush in to say the test would have prevented everything. And what is an unnecessary treatment?
Government Control + No Tort Reform = those 45 million uninsured wishing they had been ignored for just one more election cycle, and the rest of us regretting the next doctors appointment.
Do you think that forcing people to buy insurance is going to hurt the insurance companies or make them more responsive? Do you think forcing the insurers to compete against a public option will make insurers more efficient? Do you think that the Post Office makes Fed Ex more efficient?
I had a recent hospital stay that confirms in my mind that the system is insane, but nothing that Obama wants to do will change the problems. It will only make them bigger.
On Oct 18 01:05 AM bricki wrote:
> Attempts at whitewashing the facts don't alter the picture.
>
> The US is 29th in the world in infant mortality. Whatever measurement
> variations you propose won't make it look good.
>
> You might find an argument that the decrease in US height measurements
> is not significant. However is irrefutable that West Europeans are
> have surpassed Americans in average height.
>
> Life expectancy in the US is declining. Not significantly in aggregate
> country wide numbers but definitely in certain regions and populations
> like poor women.
>
> You can attempt to blame the states for the problems but in fact
> the states with the most aggressive regulations often have the best
> results.
>
> The current system is broken. 20% of the population is inadequately
> protected. We have huge unfunded liabilities.
>
> Entrenched private insurers have failed to offer any alternatives.
> All they are doing is fighting to retain their status quo. That is
> not going to fix the problem.
Actually, the growth in costs of lawyers and malpractice insurance is quite small compared with payment to doctors and premiums paid to health insurance companies.
The medical cartel has been robbing us for decades. Let's pop the bubble and start all over again.
On Oct 18 05:56 AM Karen Consumer wrote:
> Healthcare is not a right. Healthcare is an expense just like transportation,
> utilities, etc. How much you spend is up to you. Yes, there are
> those without insurance. But if you are sick (and I don't mean with
> a headache, I mean truly ill) you can go into any hospital in America
> and be treated first, then asked to pay later. If that were not
> true, we would not have pregnant women crossing the border in El
> Paso, Laredo, Brownsville, etc, to come have their children here.
> If you're in a car accident, the paramedics don't demand proof of
> insurance before they look at you. Parkland Hospital here in Dallas
> County treats everyone, regardless of insurance (and even residency,
> and I don't mean legal vs illegal).
>
> Our biggest health cost today isn't doctors or medicine, its lawyers.
> The Obamacare bandwagon keeps on about "unnecessary tests and treatments",
> but not one thing said about reducing malpractice lawsuit use &
> abuse (like wrongful life suits when a doctor DOESN'T order every
> test in the book and the baby is born with a health problem). It's
> only an unnecessary test if it's negative, or right up until the
> patient gets the condition/illness/dise... and then the lawyers rush
> in to say the test would have prevented everything. And what is
> an unnecessary treatment?
>
> Government Control + No Tort Reform = those 45 million uninsured
> wishing they had been ignored for just one more election cycle, and
> the rest of us regretting the next doctors appointment.
"I will turn my back on my rich doctor friends, and my rich drug lord friends, and my rich insurance agent friends, when the pry my cold, dead finger off the trigger of my gun."
The Drug Cartel is America is a ruthless powerful mafia that needs to be broken down and reconstructed for the sake of business and American consumers. I defend the status quo, no matter what it is, needs to be re-examined. It is NOT the American Way to allow the rich and powerful to cheat and steal and to accept it because of some loyalty to tradition.
On Oct 18 01:05 AM bricki wrote:
> Attempts at whitewashing the facts don't alter the picture.
>
> The US is 29th in the world in infant mortality. Whatever measurement
> variations you propose won't make it look good.
>
> You might find an argument that the decrease in US height measurements
> is not significant. However is irrefutable that West Europeans are
> have surpassed Americans in average height.
>
> Life expectancy in the US is declining. Not significantly in aggregate
> country wide numbers but definitely in certain regions and populations
> like poor women.
>
> You can attempt to blame the states for the problems but in fact
> the states with the most aggressive regulations often have the best
> results.
>
> The current system is broken. 20% of the population is inadequately
> protected. We have huge unfunded liabilities.
>
> Entrenched private insurers have failed to offer any alternatives.
> All they are doing is fighting to retain their status quo. That is
> not going to fix the problem.
Business executives site the cost of health-insurance premiums as one of the reasons they've either gone out of business, or, where possible, shipped manufacturing jobs overseas, to avoid the health-care benefit for workers.
Let's not be blind. Let's not defend the status quo just because of its power. Should a medical catastrophe send a family into bankruptcy which destroys a family financially -- just so we can continue creating billionaire doctors, drug company CEO's and insurance executives? My answer is NO. Most of the countries of the world also say NO. We are so fascinated with the idea of 'individual opportunity' and individual destiny that we have lost track of the idea of social cohesion and a family of social values. That's why our economy is failing. We're top-heavy. Too much weight at the top; not enough at the bottom. It's time to prune the tree again; and start over.
On Oct 17 10:53 PM T.Geiger wrote:
> On Oct 17 09:55 PM bricki wrote:
On Oct 17 07:55 PM Fourpenny Guy wrote:
> The easiest solution in dealing with Healthcare in general, and the
> insurers in particular is to nationalize healthcare and eliminate
> private insurance. I am reminded of the first and only time Lenin
> allowed the Russian Congress to meet. He simply dissolved the congress.
> Healthcare is a right, not a choice, not an economic poker chip,
> and along with Energy and Finance, should be heavily regulated, if
> not outright nationalized.
>
> Yes, nationalized healthcare is socialism, but, so what? Private
> options lead to expense and uninsured Americans. The public option
> would lead to full insurance, access to the healthcare Americans
> deserve, and less wasteful discussion over cost and access. If Obama
> is socialist, so what? Socialism does work in Europe and can function
> in the US.
Insurance industry traps that put profits over people is WRONG!
Uninsured people that walk into emergency rooms drive up all our COSTS!
Americans need reliable and affordable health care. Reform means Change that is available to ALL American citizens.
On Oct 17 10:02 PM inthemoney wrote:
>
On Oct 18 06:25 AM Michael Clark wrote:
> Health-care is NOT broken? Come on. Nearly 60% of personal bankruptcies
> this year were connected to medical catastrophes -- many of the bankruptcies
> came for patients who were insured. Insurance didn't cover what
> they should have.
>
> Business executives site the cost of health-insurance premiums as
> one of the reasons they've either gone out of business, or, where
> possible, shipped manufacturing jobs overseas, to avoid the health-care
> benefit for workers.
>
> Let's not be blind. Let's not defend the status quo just because
> of its power. Should a medical catastrophe send a family into bankruptcy
> which destroys a family financially -- just so we can continue creating
> billionaire doctors, drug company CEO's and insurance executives?
> My answer is NO. Most of the countries of the world also say NO.
> We are so fascinated with the idea of 'individual opportunity' and
> individual destiny that we have lost track of the idea of social
> cohesion and a family of social values. That's why our economy is
> failing. We're top-heavy. Too much weight at the top; not enough
> at the bottom. It's time to prune the tree again; and start over.
>
She has given me a humble perspective on an incredibly complicated field and the dedicated workers that commit to medicine. I find the partisan screaming on both sides of the issue somewhat depressing. While I don't believe death panels will rule the day, I do believe this is an issue that everyone should take unusual effort to understand. Why? Because, likely the lives of you and your loved ones, both medical and financial, will soon rest in the balance based on the wisdom of the final outcome.
This is an issue on which all should remain Independent and skeptical of the claim of any politician "being here to help." Of course, I am located in Illinois, where the last Republican Governor sits in jail for running a payoff system that allowed an illiterate truck driver to kill five children of a Pastor on a Milwaukee expressway and the indicted former Democratic Governor awaits trial on trying to shake down $2M from a children's hospital. Sign me up as "Very concerned and skeptical."
I don't trust Obama, nor did I trust Bush or any other politician, but that doesn't matter. I loathe the health insurance industry and like Michael Clark said, we need to reset this farce... the world looks at the US and laughs.
With a public plan, who would you complain to? Write your congressmen? Note they haven't fired anyone after the 9/11 debacle.
Best of luck to you in your wish for a public plan.
TK
On Oct 18 10:44 AM avi8tor wrote:
> It amazes me to see all the pro-insurance/status quo comments on
> this board... what amazes me even more are the almost instant, multiple
> thumbs-down posters receive if they have a dissenting opinion. Which
> HMO do you guys work for?
>
> I don't trust Obama, nor did I trust Bush or any other politician,
> but that doesn't matter. I loathe the health insurance industry and
> like Michael Clark said, we need to reset this farce... the world
> looks at the US and laughs.
Insurance companies are required to operate their business in such a manner to maximize profits and minimize expenses as are all other public companies
Yes Americans need health care reform but to believe that OIbamacare will provide that which you believe all are entitled to is nothing short of naive, you will get less and it will cost more, you can take that to the bank
And as far as it being available to all Americans, its not now and it wont be under Obamacare as per the CBO
On Oct 18 08:46 AM Suzit wrote:
> Congress has for decades put off dealing with spiraling health care
> costs. Corporations have been dropping their amount of health care
> coverage rapidly, especially since 2000.
>
> Insurance industry traps that put profits over people is WRONG!<br/>Unins...
> people that walk into emergency rooms drive up all our COSTS!
>
> Americans need reliable and affordable health care. Reform means
> Change that is available to ALL American citizens.
For example let's look at the infant mortality issue. Yes nations vary considerably in how they calculate infant mortality. One critic here mentioned that the US counts premature births where other nations do not. That is true.
But behind the numbers there are root causes. The number one indicator for infant mortality is low birth weight. The US has an appallingly high rate of low birth weight infants. Even though the US has the best survival rates for such infants in the world the rate of low birth weight infants is so high that we end up with very high infant mortality rates.
What is low birth weight an indicator of? Fundamental failure to deliver adequate health care to women of child bearing age.
People here complain that health care isn't a right but rather an individual responsibility. Well maybe. But exactly how is a fetus or child capable of taking on responsibility for its health care? Society does have a fundamental role in protecting those who cannot protect themselves before they are adults. It is utterly barbaric that a great nation like the US does such a poor job at this.
THINK ABOUT THIS. What do you think the cost to American society for this is? What is the likely impact to society of these infants? Are these the people that are going to be long term contributors or long term drags on the US economy?
And those who complain about rationing? What sort of fantasy health insurance do you have now? Health insurers already enforce rationing, restrict you to using certain doctors and control your treatment choices.
I am not particularly enthusiastic about a regulated solution. The examples available show that there are significant downsides to that approach. But are these downsides worse than what we have today? For some people they may be, especially those employed in some segments of the existing insurance industry. But for others probably not.
But the real question the critics can't answer is what else is on the table? Who has come forward with a solution that has the potential to address the issues we have with:
- Costs out of control and rising far faster than inflation
- Total lack of real competition to keep these costs low
- The most expensive system in the world that still doesn't cover pre existing conditions or 20% of the population.
- Results measurable by population wide metrics that fall short of nations that spend far less.
- Unfunded liabilities for medicare that threaten to crush us economically.
- Costs to employers that make them uncompetitive in the global economy.
As far as the Post Office vs Fed Ex, you have got to be kidding. What is the real history? Fed Ex exists today because they fill a niche that the Post Office doesn't address. And I expect that is what will happen with this proposal. The government option will be the Post Office of health plans. The private options will offer more elaborate menus and fancier services. Look at the rest of the world. This is exactly what has happened in England, France (often cited as the best system in the world) and elsewhere. And is happening today with the Medicare system in the US.
On Oct 18 06:05 AM a fat panda wrote:
> Everything you say may be true (and there are already posts questioning
> your figures). You have missed the point. Obama plans is going
> to take what we have that is broken, and make it bigger and more
> broken.
>
> Do you think that forcing people to buy insurance is going to hurt
> the insurance companies or make them more responsive? Do you think
> forcing the insurers to compete against a public option will make
> insurers more efficient? Do you think that the Post Office makes
> Fed Ex more efficient?
>
> I had a recent hospital stay that confirms in my mind that the system
> is insane, but nothing that Obama wants to do will change the problems.
> It will only make them bigger.
How do you square your statement with governments stance on abortion, under current law a Fetus has no rights because it is not considered a person until born, partial birth abortion allows viable babies to be terminated up to it can breath on its own once delivererd. If thats what you mean by barbaric then I agree but its the law of the land.
As far as children health care goes its the parents responsibility to provide such care and when they dont or abuse their children the states have social services who are supposed to be the safety net, however they so such a poor job that they become more the problem then the solution. But it will never change because these types of agencies empower the government and that the way they want it to be no matter at what cost to those they are supposed to help, whether financial or psychological.
This Admin has no interest in making health care any better they just want to be in charge of it, so goes social services so goes our health care.
Obama is throwing the baby out with the bath water and knows it but doesnt care because once the Gov is in charge of health care who will you be able to complain to that right the Fox who is in charge of the hen house, and they wont be listening because they dont ahve to and thats exactly the way the government wants it.
Ask yourself this question, "Why is it thatpublic health care tort reform limiting pain and suffering awards is resisted and frowned upon by the Admin when it is policy with Workman Compensation. The former helps the government the latter hurts the government, read between the lines
"He who deals in onions no longer smells them!"
On Oct 18 11:54 AM bricki wrote:
> While some people have questioned my figures they haven't come up
> with a thesis that addresses the overall issue or even the details
> behind the figures.
>
> For example let's look at the infant mortality issue. Yes nations
> vary considerably in how they calculate infant mortality. One critic
> here mentioned that the US counts premature births where other nations
> do not. That is true.
>
> But behind the numbers there are root causes. The number one indicator
> for infant mortality is low birth weight. The US has an appallingly
> high rate of low birth weight infants. Even though the US has the
> best survival rates for such infants in the world the rate of low
> birth weight infants is so high that we end up with very high infant
> mortality rates.
>
> What is low birth weight an indicator of? Fundamental failure to
> deliver adequate health care to women of child bearing age.
>
> People here complain that health care isn't a right but rather an
> individual responsibility. Well maybe. But exactly how is a fetus
> or child capable of taking on responsibility for its health care?
> Society does have a fundamental role in protecting those who cannot
> protect themselves before they are adults. It is utterly barbaric
> that a great nation like the US does such a poor job at this.
>
> THINK ABOUT THIS. What do you think the cost to American society
> for this is? What is the likely impact to society of these infants?
> Are these the people that are going to be long term contributors
> or long term drags on the US economy?
>
> And those who complain about rationing? What sort of fantasy health
> insurance do you have now? Health insurers already enforce rationing,
> restrict you to using certain doctors and control your treatment
> choices.
>
> I am not particularly enthusiastic about a regulated solution. The
> examples available show that there are significant downsides to that
> approach. But are these downsides worse than what we have today?
> For some people they may be, especially those employed in some segments
> of the existing insurance industry. But for others probably not.
>
>
> But the real question the critics can't answer is what else is on
> the table? Who has come forward with a solution that has the potential
> to address the issues we have with:
>
> - Costs out of control and rising far faster than inflation
> - Total lack of real competition to keep these costs low
> - The most expensive system in the world that still doesn't cover
> pre existing conditions or 20% of the population.
> - Results measurable by population wide metrics that fall short of
> nations that spend far less.
> - Unfunded liabilities for medicare that threaten to crush us economically.
>
> - Costs to employers that make them uncompetitive in the global economy.
>
>
> As far as the Post Office vs Fed Ex, you have got to be kidding.
> What is the real history? Fed Ex exists today because they fill a
> niche that the Post Office doesn't address. And I expect that is
> what will happen with this proposal. The government option will be
> the Post Office of health plans. The private options will offer more
> elaborate menus and fancier services. Look at the rest of the world.
> This is exactly what has happened in England, France (often cited
> as the best system in the world) and elsewhere. And is happening
> today with the Medicare system in the US.
>
> On Oct 18 06:05 AM a fat panda wrote:
> I run a small business (12 people). Our insurance premiums came
> up for renewal this month from Aetna. The premiums increased 12%.
> Exactly the same coverage. I don't know who is "lying" or who isn't
> and what exactly the problem is but no small business has enough
> pricing power to accommodate a 12% increase in costs.
Here is the rub, all of the current plans just utilize the outrage expressed here to grab power for Congress and the Administration without improving the system. This is the big problem, the Congress and Administration know they do not have to fix healthcare, they just need to say they want to and you idiots will support them. What happened to transparency (an Obama promise), what happened to public view of all bills and public discussion (an Obama promise), what happened to ending the wars (an Obama promise), what happened to stopping the wire tapping (an Obama promise). I could go on, but do you SEE A PATTERN HERE.
Then couple that with all of the other success that the government has: wait I can't name one. I'm done with "trust me it'll be ok" from politicians, because it never is.
And that is what makes anyone that supports the current plans on healthcare simply a socialist/fascist sympathizer. Someone who is willing to sell out America simply to try without any confidence of success. Because socialism and fascism is what is being proposed.
Get our your history books (but you'll need to find one that has not been rewritten in the last 50 years.)
End the end in comes down to one thought. Yes healthcare has some rough edges, however, our government is broken to a large extent. Its full of theft, greed, payoffs, bribes, selective enforcement, and downright dishonesty. Why would anyone with any intelligence trade our mostly working healthcare system for a fundamentally broken government system. No one would that values the American way of life.