|
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
"Gunner Asch" wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. Liar |
I'm voting republican because...
On Sep 22, 5:16*pm, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:43:40 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote: On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Not any difference than between two crooks who both say the other guy did the crime. Except for one thing, one guy did it and the other didn't. It's the same with the two parties. While they do blame each other for whatever goes wrong some of the time what one of them says is right. Take the economic problems that are happening now. The Democrats say that Bush administration policies of the last eight years are to blame for where we are now. That's pretty logical, don't you think? They have been making the decisions for the last eight years. The republicans say, like they always do, it is Bill Clinton's fault. Now you tell me who's accusations are worth listening to and whose are bull****? Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. And gridlocked by Republicans. * Impossible. It's idiotic to blame one party while ignoring the actions of the other. -- Regards, Curly ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--- * * * * * The Bush Doctrine: *Privatize Profits, Socialize Losses ---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--- .................................................. .............. * * * * Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access * * * * * * * * * athttp://www.TitanNews.com -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Health Care
Ed Huntress wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 'Private' insurance IS government sponsored and regulated. Government intervention was brought about by insurance and financial corporations seeking monopoly control of the industry. Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. Medicare and medicaid are government insurance. You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) Before this is over there will be individuals in every neighborhood 'practicing' medicine sans license. -- Ed Huntress ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Health Care
"strabo" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "strabo" wrote in message ... snip As soon as government got into the insurance business prices went up and quality went down. According to the Goldwater Institute, health care prices went up in parallel to the prevalence of private insurance. And the big spike corresponds to the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. Look at the graph on this page: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/Ab...w.aspx?id=2317 'Private' insurance IS government sponsored and regulated. Government intervention was brought about by insurance and financial corporations seeking monopoly control of the industry. Oh, jesus. OK, strabo. I knew you'd find a way to have it both ways. But...but...tell us how they benefit from higher prices for health care. If they had a monopoly, they'd want higher prices to their customers or lower costs for themselves. Right? Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. You're full of crap. You are totally, irrevocably, full of crap. Let's see your evidence. Medicare and medicaid are government insurance. Duh.... You need alternative forms of medicine. I don't care what you say, I am NOT going to start seeing your witch doctor. d8-) Before this is over there will be individuals in every neighborhood 'practicing' medicine sans license. Before *what* is over? Are you talking about the End Times, or what? -- Ed Huntress |
Health Care
Hawke wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Hawke ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Health Care
"strabo" wrote in message ... Hawke wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message ... snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder... If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety, better technology, and tighter regulations. You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity. It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money? If not, then how much are you willing to pay? -- Ed Huntress |
Health Care
On Sep 22, 9:00*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"strabo" wrote in message ... Hawke wrote: "Ed Huntress" wrote in message ... "Hawke" wrote in message .. . snipped We have to get a new administration or we will stay with this failing system all the way until it actually goes bust. Maybe that's okay with some people but I sure hope the ones with brains don't let that happen. Whether a new administration will be able to do anything about the costs is problematic. Obviously, we have to try something. But the system is a monster that is resistant to change, and it will be very difficult. -- Ed Huntress The solution is clear. National health care is the only long term way to fix the health care crisis. People are confused. They look at the fact that costs have been going up since Reagan; that was 1980. They want to blame all kinds of things for the steep climb in prices but the reason is plain. You can't have a fee for service health care system that won't go broke. You can't have a HMO or managed care system that won't go broke either. You have too many people needing access to care for them to work and they have to make a profit. With a traditional care for profit system and numerous private firms all trying to make as much as possible and giving the minimum it just won't work. Every step of the way you have companies making profits. From the hospitals to the doctors, from the mental health providers to the medical instruments makers, from the insurance companies to the pharmaceuticals, every business is trying to use the capitalistic system to maximize profits on a service everyone has to have. The reason all the other countries have switched to universal care is simple, nothing else will work. Believe me, the other countries have studied the problem to death and none of them could find a free market approach that would succeed. If they could have found one they would have since all are capitalistic based nations. But they all went with universal care because it's the only way the government could assure health care for everyone and at a price that the countries can afford. That is what we have to do sooner or later. It's like seeing the light on oil. We have to stop using it as our primary source of energy.. We also have to put in place a medical care system that works better than the one we have now. It's not rocket science, it's a matter of getting the opposition out of the way. It's vested interests that are sandbagging the change that has to happen. That has to be overcome. Once it is we can have a good system we can afford. Until then things will continue to get worse. So we either change or see our current system go bankrupt. To me, that choice is a no-brainer. Keep it simple. Just compare the methods and costs for casting a broken leg in 1920 with those of today. After removing inflation you'll have most all the information needed to understand why costs are up. my god, a flash of rationality in a pan of libertarian gunpowder... If you reply I expect to see the money differences. If the building trade were run like the medical industry, a modest house costing $150,000 *would cost $1,000,000. The excuses would be be customer safety, technology and regulations. Yup. But, far from being "excuses," most of them would be...improved safety, better technology, and tighter regulations. You can take the reactionary path, and drag medicine back into the stone age. Of course, you'd lose a number of people here (including me g) who would be already dead if you did so. Or you can recognize the difference between the building trade and the medical industry, particularly the part about the latter's role in saving and extending lives, and, even more important, vastly reducing human morbidity. In other words, making lives that formerly were miserable, constrained, and filled with pain into something resembling normal happiness, health, and productivity. It isn't a choice for which you'd get many takers, but it would be a lot cheaper. So, tell us, what kind of a future do you see for health care? Will you tolerate more cripples and shut-ins for the sake of saving some money? If not, then how much are you willing to pay? -- Ed Huntress Did you walk to school or carry your lunch? |
I'm voting republican because... -- Another HH&C lie
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:32:30 GMT, "RM V2.0" wrote: Hawke Its not a good answer but: neither and both? Congress is Democrat controlled. No it isn't liar. Why do you lie so much? -- John R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com |
Health Care
"Ray Fischer" wrote in message ... Ed Huntress wrote: "strabo" wrote in message Insurance is not a proper venue of government regulation. Medical insurance is a primary influence on costs. If such controls were eliminated medical costs would fall by at least 50%. You're full of crap. You are totally, irrevocably, full of crap. Let's see your evidence. Isn't it obvious? With no contrants on their business, medical insurance companies could just refuse to pay any claim that was too expensive. Well, you do have a point there. That's the idea around which they're dancing already, where they can. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com