Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

Boo Radley said:

Of course we rolled back regulations on banks, and are still reluctant to go far enough to actually stop that greed thing.

Click to expand...

That greed thing is what supplies massive funds for the campaigns of our congress critters. Few are willing to bite (or even slap) the hand that feeds them.

ttwtt78640 said:

That greed thing is what supplies massive funds for the campaigns of our congress critters. Few are willing to bite (or even slap) the hand that feeds them.

Click to expand...

No argument on that.

Diogenes said:

Agreed, ever since LBJ started his "war on poverty" and Congress started interfering with the system. Government involvement always raises the costs and decreases the efficiency of any system.

Click to expand...

I think it has more to do with the medical profession keeping people alive, who would otherwise die, for an extra five years. Litigation is probably not helping keep healthcare costs down either.

Diogenes said:

I assume then that you haven't actually experienced it yet, and your opinion comes from the promotional material?

Click to expand...

It comes from parents who use it and have no complaints.

AliHajiSheik said:

You are certainly correct that the medical industry is focused around the insurance companies--because they are footing a good chunk of the bill. The only difference is that you don't really want to put it into the hands of "the American people", but you want to put it into the hands of government. Sure we elect those folks, but it's not like we've done a great job of it, so why would we expect better from them with healthcare.

Think about this. Why has the Lasik procedure gone down in price? It isn't covered by any insurance and it isn't controlled by government. All the country needs is a lot more competition and here government can help. They can allow for the insurance coverage across state lines and they can implement catastrophic coverage for all Americans. All Obamacare seems to do is create more rules and make things more complex--sort of like taxes.

If I posted something here that you disagree with, please let me know what it is. If all you think is that I didn't go far enough, then you don't seem like someone who is willing to compromise.

Click to expand...

I don't really have this faith in competition the way some people do. There's just too much collusion and monopoly that comes as a natural result of unrestrained business dealings to think that competition is some kind of magic pill. The image of businesses constantly fighting to be better in order to steal customers from their competitors is a nice one, but that's only part of it. The part where they all slowly raise their prices because it doesn't alter the balance of power is true, too. I mean, what really is the difference between an iphone and a droid other than just preferring one system or the other? There's no competition there, but the prices go up at about the same rate. They cut costs on customer service at about the same rate. They take away privacy and sell your data, and there's no alternatives because they all do it. Those are the kind of things you need something stronger, like government, to deal with. Competition doesn't solve that.

Also, I think you and I have a very different view of the relationship between government and people. Government is a tool of the people. It's our employee and it only does what we allow it to do. Unfortunately, we sold it to the highest bidder. We need to fix that. That's why I argue so strongly for public financing of elections. You will get politicians who answer to the people again when they don't have to answer to wealthy donors. The hands of government and the hands of the people should be the same thing. We need to make it that way again.

ttwtt78640 said:

Unless you count the fact that when the airlines "messed up" and allowed morons "armed" with boxcutters to drive their aircraft into buildings that the gov't assumed liability for that "mistake" and supplied them massive amounts of free security personnel, paid the claims of victims (an average of $1.7 million each) using tax money and called it "fair". Privatizing the profits while sharing (or taking all of) the losses is not quite socialism but it is surely not exactly a "free market" system.

TARP was a similar scheme to protect the banking (and financial speculation) industry from "failing" to keep making massive amounts of money since they were too big to fail, yet apparently too small to weather the results of their massive greed on their own.

Click to expand...

The cost of national security tends to be born by the public, yes.

Deuce said:

The cost of national security tends to be born by the public, yes.

Click to expand...

Yet no such action was taken in response to the Fort Hood shooting or for the Boston marathon bombing. Requiring U.S. based airlines/airports to have better security and even inspecting/grounding those airlines that did not pass muster is all that the gov't need to have done.

NRC: Frequently Asked Questions About Security Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants

Freight Rail | Transportation Security Administration

Paschendale said:

I don't really have this faith in competition the way some people do. There's just too much collusion and monopoly that comes as a natural result of unrestrained business dealings to think that competition is some kind of magic pill. The image of businesses constantly fighting to be better in order to steal customers from their competitors is a nice one, but that's only part of it. The part where they all slowly raise their prices because it doesn't alter the balance of power is true, too. I mean, what really is the difference between an iphone and a droid other than just preferring one system or the other? There's no competition there, but the prices go up at about the same rate. They cut costs on customer service at about the same rate. They take away privacy and sell your data, and there's no alternatives because they all do it. Those are the kind of things you need something stronger, like government, to deal with. Competition doesn't solve that.

Also, I think you and I have a very different view of the relationship between government and people. Government is a tool of the people. It's our employee and it only does what we allow it to do. Unfortunately, we sold it to the highest bidder. We need to fix that. That's why I argue so strongly for public financing of elections. You will get politicians who answer to the people again when they don't have to answer to wealthy donors. The hands of government and the hands of the people should be the same thing. We need to make it that way again.

Click to expand...

I'm seeing contradictions in what you say. You don't have faith in competition and then use collusion as an example. You view government as a tool of the people and then you point out that it is sold to the highest bidder. I understand and appreciate both the idealism and realism in what you write, but I don't see a solution in what you say.

I believe that government can play a very good referee in business just as was done with labeling of food items in the grocery store. You can look at a standardized label for a range of products (supplied by generally few vendors) and you can judge a product based on calories, sodium, etc. and yes, price. As you have probably seen, when surveyed on some complex medical procedures (yes, non-elective procedures to the earlier poster) you've seen a wide range of prices. If people can actually see the cost and make their own value judgment, they can make informed decisions. Now they don't worry about the price except for the portion they have to play and hospitals, etc. game the pricing because of insurance companies pricing, negotiated rates, and disallowances. The patient is far removed from a value decision. They receive a bill for a lab test and then the doctor tells them they are fine. Was the test worth the price?

Yes, I do view government differently. I see them for exactly as what you characterize them as, and I don't want to see government play a major role in healthcare for the very same reasons. In a number of ways they could be very helpful. I prefer when referees are neutral in a game and not another team competing.

So while we seek fixes for the bad parts of government, let's try to limit them to issues where there is wide agreement and they can play a useful role. I have no comment on this thread about public financing of elections as I view that as off topic and I don't want to derail this one.

Buck Ewer said:

Maybe the textbook of Rush...
As I have said before , All governments "redistribute" wealth. If you oppose this you define yourself as an anarchist. There are no governments that do not redistribute wealth.
In a single payer system the government would not own hospitals or drug factories or employ doctors. How could you see that as "ownership"?

Click to expand...

LOL!! You are quibbling about the word, "ownership". Ownership has nothing to do with it.

As I've said before, the one who pays the bills is the one who call the shots...the one who has the control. If you rely on insurance coverage for every bit of your health care, you are giving control over your health care to the insurance company. If you rely on the government to pay for every bit of your health care, you are giving control over your health care to the government. Either way, you are allowing some other organization to call the shots. You are giving up your own personal control.

I, and a lot of other people, really don't have the confidence in the government to effectively and efficiently control my health care. And with the excessive government control of heath insurance companies, I don't have much confidence in insurance companies, either. But it all is a result of too much government control.

calamity said:

It's supposed to be that way.

I've paid tens of thoudsands for health insurance over my working career and never see a doctor. I'm still grateful for the asset protection if ever I do need hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of healthcare. That's why they call it insurance.

Click to expand...

Then its even worse off because your paying for medical insurance IN ADDITION to a possible future medical plan which you cant use for 65 years. Medicare is not insurance because you have no immediate benefit. Standard health insurance is because you see an immediate benefit.

calamity said:

There is so much wrong with this post, hell would freeze over before I had time to refute all of it. But...I'll start by saying health care costs have been soaring long before Obama became President.
Healthcare Costs Soar Above Overall Inflation


And, finding a good job became a problem as soon as Bill Clinton left the White House, if you want to play the partisan card.

Click to expand...

LOL. You are in way over your head. Take a chill pill or something and try to figure something out.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yet no such action was taken in response to the Fort Hood shooting or for the Boston marathon bombing. Requiring U.S. based airlines/airports to have better security and even inspecting/grounding those airlines that did not pass muster is all that the gov't need to have done.

NRC: Frequently Asked Questions About Security Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants

Freight Rail | Transportation Security Administration

Click to expand...

What do you mean "no such action?" Law enforcement and military bases are already paid for by taxpayers. Those costs are already born by the public. There wasn't any security hole left open by private industries to fill. What sort of equivalent action are you envisioning as a response to Ft. Hood or Boston?

Deuce said:

What do you mean "no such action?" Law enforcement and military bases are already paid for by taxpayers. Those costs are already born by the public. There wasn't any security hole left open by private industries to fill.

Click to expand...

Rewarding the victim's families (averaging $1.7 million each) and adding more security.

ttwtt78640 said:

Rewarding the victim's families (averaging $1.7 million each) and adding more security.

Click to expand...

Different situations, different responses. Is there some reason you think it has to be one response fits all?

upsideguy said:

Yep. Obamacare is the ultimate camel (the animal designed by committee). Rather than wasting everyone's time trying to correct the problem of being only 1st world country without national healthcare...

Click to expand...

.
Socialism is failing all over the world. Their European medical systems are bankrupt, inefficient and corrupt (like The Clinton Foundation). We were idiots to follow their socialist schemes because they have put us into humungous debt and made us less competitive... er... translation... it costs us jobs.

It's insane to copy failure. What's that old chestnut? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I guess our Amerikan Sozialists thought they were more skilled than our European failures. WRONG! Socialism never works because it's fundamentally flawed.

Boo Radley said:

Wow, who knew you thought so much of Reid.

Click to expand...

Nice try. Might work a junior high debates. Not here.

I don't think much of Reid. He's another devious crook that's screwing the US. But I'll take him at his word for this just as I believed him when he was speaking for the Demokrat Party when he said "This war is lost."

It the real world, he's right that it should not be seen as the end of the effort. And while I would strongly support a move toward a single payer system. Tat said, just wanting us to do the right thing doesn't mean we will. So lets not get too hyperbolic. I mean if you can refrain.

Click to expand...

ObamaKare was always seen as the first step towards single payer... and Libs here tried to deny it. I bet I could go back and find most active Libs here doing it... including you.

Deuce said:

Different situations, different responses. Is there some reason you think it has to be one response fits all?

Click to expand...

The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for one. Once you establish a precedent the victims of "terror" are "special" it is hard to get that toothpaste back into the tube. What is the difference, thta you see, between a terrorist killing you with an airliner, gun or bomb?

Deuce said:

Speaking of low information voters, you sure have bought the right-wing fearmongering regarding how single-payer works!

Click to expand...

Please provide me a success story on single payer anywhere in the world? Britain? Canada? Like all liberal social programs they sound great until it gets around to implementation and management

I love how libertarians can easily predict the end result of both RINO's and Progressives actions/legislation yet both political parties call "bull****" then argue amongst themselves when the predictions come into fruition...

The Tea Party and libertarians told you so....

jonny5 said:

His goal is to redistribute wealth and govt ownership of healthcare, in order to achieve social equality. Thats the textbook definition of socialism.

Click to expand...

Every President has redistribution goals of wealth. Bush did it by redistributing it to the wealthy. You didn't complain then did you? As for government ownership, you need to learn what "ownership" means. Also, social equity doesn't equate to Socialism.

Please stop using words you don't understand.

jonny5 said:

Then its even worse off because your paying for medical insurance IN ADDITION to a possible future medical plan which you cant use for 65 years. Medicare is not insurance because you have no immediate benefit. Standard health insurance is because you see an immediate benefit.

Click to expand...

Insurance doesn't require immediate benefits. All insurance does is spread risk. You can easily have an insurance contract that starts coverage at a date well after the initial period. Nothing in contract law prevents this.

zimmer said:

Nice try. Might work a junior high debates. Not here.

I don't think much of Reid. He's another devious crook that's screwing the US. But I'll take him at his word for this just as I believed him when he was speaking for the Demokrat Party when he said "This war is lost."


ObamaKare was always seen as the first step towards single payer... and Libs here tried to deny it. I bet I could go back and find most active Libs here doing it... including you.

Click to expand...

Seen? Speculation. If it pans out that way, great for the country, but I wouldn't count on it.

Boo Radley said:

Seen? Speculation. If it pans out that way, great for the country, but I wouldn't count on it.

Click to expand...

Please name for me any Federal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and never left the country in worse shape?

Conservative said:

Please name for me any Federal social program that cost what it was supposed to cost, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and never left the country in worse shape?

Click to expand...

I've done this for you already, showing that often they more than they are suppose to do.

Boo Radley said:

I've done this for you already, showing that often they more than they are suppose to do.

Click to expand...

I cannot believe how naive you are for someone your age. The answer is no Govt. social program ever cost what it was supposed to do, did what it was supposed to do, solved a problem, and left this country in better shape.