The problem right now is that the insurance industry isn't any better and it doesn't have any motivation to get any better than being a massive money pit.

 

I'm fine with the the federal government setting up a system to compete with the insurance companies, but I am against being forced to pay into that system. Kinda like how I pay into social security and will never see any of that money. It's gone. I'm basically paying double for my retirement.

People don't have the right to decide where they go for care now. In virtually all cases it's limited/dictated by an insurance company.

 

I can go to pretty much any doctor I want. If I get injured I can go a private hospital. The private insurance system has big flaws, if the government's plan is better I will go there. If it sucks I should not be forced into it.

Edited March 6, 200818 yr by mr_genius

I can go to pretty much any doctor I want. If I get injured I can go a private hospital. The private insurance system has big flaws, if the government's plan is better I will go there. If it sucks I should not be forced into it.

And now to spring the fun part on you...you've basically outlined the general structure of both Hillary and Obama's Health care plans!

And now to spring the fun part on you...you've basically outlined the general structure of both Hillary and Obama's Health care plans!

 

No, their plans will tax me to pay for their system (even if they aren't be honest about that little fact, that is the only way they can pay for it). If I chose private health care I will be paying double. Paying the high tax rates and paying for my private insurance.

And now to spring the fun part on you...you've basically outlined the general structure of both Hillary and Obama's Health care plans!

Well, really, its closer to Obama's. Clinton's plan is a mandate further than Obama's.

 

 

Thats messed up that Greg Walker got abducted by aliens again. Poor guy, talk about bad luck.

Edited March 6, 200818 yr by mr_genius

If it cost just as much but also insured everyone, isn't that a step upwards?

 

One of two things will happen

 

#1 It won't cost the same amount.

 

or

 

#2 There will be massive shortages of healthcare if the government mandates costs without finding a way to increase supply.

People that choose private insurance should not have to pay into the government system if they do not want to. I would like limiting insurance costs for doctors by limiting malpractice rewards.

 

How so?

Our good friends at KBR, Halliburton subsidiary, have avoided some $500 million in Social Security and Medicare taxes by hiring American workers that they're sending to Iraq through one of their shell corporations in the Cayman Islands.

Government controlling health care isn't going to lower costs. Health care is going to cost just as much, if not more, once big government corruption gets involved. The only difference is it will be a socialized pooling of money.

Why do people talk about the government ("government" being a general term but usually applying only to the federal one) is the only organization capable of being corrupt and/or incompetent?

Why do people talk about the government ("government" being a general term but usually applying only to the federal one) is the only organization capable of being corrupt and/or incompetent?

It is not the only organization as such, but it is one of the most inefficient and incompentent forms of "doing business" there is because there's no reason for efficiency at all. None.

It is not the only organization as such, but it is one of the most inefficient and incompentent forms of "doing business" there is because there's no reason for efficiency at all. None.

There is a lot more accountability among government employees than the average person seems to think.

 

Now, if you want to talk about elected officials... that's a whole different story.

Why do people talk about the government ("government" being a general term but usually applying only to the federal one) is the only organization capable of being corrupt and/or incompetent?

 

no one said it's the only one, just that the gov is usually the worst. corruption, no competition, cost raising bureaucracy, don't care about customer service cause they are the only show in town, ect.

no one said it's the only one, just that the gov is usually the worst. corruption, no competition, cost raising bureaucracy, don't care about customer service cause they are the only show in town, ect.

Not disputing all of the above but Option B is not always automatically better. The corruption factor is the same when it comes to large amounts of $$$$. Power is susceptible to corruption and money=power

 

Don't think I'm arguing in favor of the gov't running more things because I'm not.

There is a lot more accountability among government employees than the average person seems to think.

 

Now, if you want to talk about elected officials... that's a whole different story.

Accountability to individuals is one thing, but if the whole thing is beaurocratic to begin with...

Accountability to individuals is one thing, but if the whole thing is beaurocratic to begin with...

How many things involving a lot of money don't also involve bureaucracy?

How many things involving a lot of money don't also involve bureaucracy?

As I said, it's always there on some level, but as soon as you take the marketplace out of something to incentivize efficiencies, it becomes inefficient by nature.

 

Why do people talk about the government ("government" being a general term but usually applying only to the federal one) is the only organization capable of being corrupt and/or incompetent?

 

Profit is a powerful motivator.

Profit is a powerful motivator.

Indeed it is

 

edit: assuming you're talking about corruption

Edited March 8, 200818 yr by lostfan

Indeed it is

 

edit: assuming you're talking about corruption

It's ok, we should just all become one big happy nanny state where everything is taken care of by our government because it does SOOOOO much good for us. Food, health care, cars, jobs, money, spouses, religion (oh wait, we can't have that now, can we?)...

It's ok, we should just all become one big happy nanny state where everything is taken care of by our government because it does SOOOOO much good for us. Food, health care, cars, jobs, money, spouses, religion (oh wait, we can't have that now, can we?)...

 

Last night, the Dems scored a big Congress win, taking out Jim Oberweis in Illinois...in Dennis Hastert's old district...and on top of it, the nearly broke NRCC dumped a ton of money in to that race too.

Last night, the Dems scored a big Congress win, taking out Jim Oberweis in Illinois...in Dennis Hastert's old district...and on top of it, the nearly broke NRCC dumped a ton of money in to that race too.

Good Riddance Oberweisse. He is by FAR the most negative politician I can remember. Almost ALL his ads are teardowns of his opponents. Talk about yourself!

Last night, the Dems scored a big Congress win, taking out Jim Oberweis in Illinois...in Dennis Hastert's old district...and on top of it, the nearly broke NRCC dumped a ton of money in to that race too.

That was indeed a big win. Its a heavily republican district, or at least has been for a long time. My parents live in that district. Its heavily gerimandered, stretching from the west suburbs to the Mississippi.

 

Oberweis spent a ton of money, Hastert was the guy before and he was popular, and McCain even made an appearance with Oberweis. And still, Foster won, spending a lot less money. The combination of anger at Bush, Oberweis' thoroughly unlikeable public demeanor, and a changing electorate all factored in.

 

I think this might be a bit of a hint of what November will look like for Congress.

 

Last night, the Dems scored a big Congress win, taking out Jim Oberweis in Illinois...in Dennis Hastert's old district...and on top of it, the nearly broke NRCC dumped a ton of money in to that race too.

 

Oberweis is just a lousy candidate. he needs to stop running for office.