and they call us "Astro turfers" [Archive]

View Full Version : and they call us "Astro turfers"

SteamWake

10-06-09, 11:00 AM

They call us tea baggers, asto turfers, angry mobs, manufactured and contrived 'hate' for the black man in office.

So whos 'manufacturing' things now?

WASHINGTON -- President Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet -- and handed out doctors' white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.

In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.

"Members of the medical community -- who deal with red tape day in and day out -- rightly recognize that the Democrats' government takeover would weaken the doctor-patient relationship that is so critical to making the right health-care decisions," he said.

Obama made no mention of the "public option" -- a controversial government-run insurance plan favored by liberal Democrats -- in his Rose Garden spiel.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/tricky_doctored_photo_kTVWHZ3vEeRQbxCC0TNZHN

nikimcbee

10-06-09, 11:18 AM

Oh, I thought this thread was going to be about Aaron Rodgers, as he is now an expert in the turf in the metrodome.:har:

Nevermind.:D

mookiemookie

10-06-09, 11:22 AM

SteamWake

10-06-09, 11:39 AM

FIREWALL

10-06-09, 12:06 PM

It was a garden party. The Dr.s got free eats, laughed and left. :haha:

AVGWarhawk

10-06-09, 02:18 PM

SteamWake

10-06-09, 02:37 PM

I would think that the insurance industry would be against health care simply due to the fact of .. how in the hell are they going to compete with an industry that operates at a loss :shifty:

But yea I dont see any orginized efforts by 'big insurance' on this thing one way or the other. In fact there conspicuous by their abscence.

AVGWarhawk

10-06-09, 02:47 PM

Of course the insurance companies are against healthcare sponsored by the government because no one can compete with the government. However, I did not see booths and banners sponsored by an insurance company at the march on Washington a few weeks ago. To be honest, I do not believe I have heard one peep from the insurance companies on this healthcare reform.

mookiemookie

10-06-09, 07:25 PM

Keep being good little insurance company sheep:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11814.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125107323271252625.html

August

10-06-09, 07:53 PM

Keep being good little insurance company sheep:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11814.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125107323271252625.html

Dude, you said:

"If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself. "

The links you posted are mainly stories about the activism of private citizens, not company organized efforts.

Example:
Dan Lucas, a database operations manager for Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oregon, said he got upset when he heard the White House demonize health plans as profit centers, when many, like his employer, are not-for-profit companies. He decided without coaching from AHIP or Regence Blue Cross to take that message to Rep. David Wu's (D., Ore.) town-hall meeting in...

Mr Lucas has a right to voice his opinion to his elected representative like anyone else. Although it seems inconvenient to the ruling party, Americans do not loose their right to free speech just because they have a personal stake in a particular political debate.

Tribesman

10-06-09, 08:03 PM

Keep being good little insurance company sheep:

You should have mentioned the $380 million they have recently spent in their efforts to fight healthcare reform.

The links you posted are mainly stories about the activism of private citizens, not company organized efforts.

Actually no.
A "Town Hall Tips" memo written by America's Health Insurance Plans
A little story about Mr Lucas going to a meeting does not negate that.

mookiemookie

10-06-09, 08:36 PM

Dude, you said:

"If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself. "

The links you posted are mainly stories about the activism of private citizens, not company organized efforts.

Fine, you can take it from Wendell Potter, ex-Cigna head of PR:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/profile.html

Cohaagen

10-06-09, 08:52 PM

What am "teabaggers"?

What am "astro turfers" (sic)?

What am are de black man in de office?

Excuse me for my ignorance, I'm a foreigner - I haven't a clue what you're banging on about, SteamingWake. There are quite a lot of us who don't live in America. I am English-speaking, don't worry.

I don't know a thing about teabagging - sounds a bit suspect to me, really. Sure I saw something about it in a John Waters film during my student days.

Anyway, never mind that, that's not important - are you for the Scottish Socialist Party, the SNP, the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, or Scottish Labour, Mr Wake? That's what I'm talking about. There may be an independence referendum in the next few years.

It's happening in the country I live in, therefore it is the most important thing in the world. I'm typing about it right now, you know. Well, what do you think? That Alec Salmond, eh? Sean Connery on a banknote, what? Well, come on! Or are you one of these so-called "birthers", who thinks Sir Sean was born in Trinidad and is just faking the accent?

SteamWake

10-06-09, 09:13 PM

Steamingwake :har:

August

10-06-09, 11:25 PM

A little story about Mr Lucas going to a meeting does not negate that.

And a "Town Hall Tips memo" does not equate to "millions of dollars spent whipping up the masses".

Aramike

10-07-09, 12:14 AM

If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself.

But by all means, go ahead and let millions of people die because your corporate masters want to score cheap political points against the other side.That's a tad grand, don't you think?

I've never hidden the fact that I support some sort of universal health care, but millions of people are not dying because of a corporate approach. In fact, corporations are the single largest payers of health insurance in this country, helping to provide private insurance to MILLIONS of Americans. Furthermore, all Americans HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE - they just get billed for it and it goes on their credit.

As a result, I'd like to suggest that we dispense with the Michael Moore dramatics and approach the issue reasonably. Personally, I believe that some measure of universal health care should happen. I believe there should be a government option for catastrophic care, and I believe it is possible to create an economic system that can deter the overuse that leads to rationed care, while still not making standard care inaccessible.

But what does our idiotic Congress do? They write bills that are beyond convoluted and seem to only marginally decrease the financial burden of the individual, while making absurd promises out of hand (such as, it's cost neutral, it won't help lead to the elimination of private insurance, etc.).

Ultimately, mookie, your side is failing because they are flat out lying. Sure, they have good intentions - but the average American isn't so stupid as the buy the BS they're selling (cost neutral? REALLY???). Furthermore, the average American understands that they are proposing a dramatic change in the nation's healthcare landscape, all the while they clearly either have no grasp on the full cause/effect factor of the bill, or they do and are lying about it.

This is the least trusted Congress in American history, and they want us to trust them to dramatically and convolutedly change the very nature of something that so many of us have little problem with. And, they want to ram it down our throats, right on the tail of a failed stimulus package that constituted the greatest amount of government spending in HISTORY. And they want us to trust the predictive powers of the White House and a president who told us that the stimulus must be rushed through and doing so would prevent unemployment from rising beyond 8%.

The fact is that, especially regarding healthcare, the White House and Congress have no idea what the hell they are doing. Americans, by and large, are aware of the fact that they have no idea what the hell they are doing.

And that, my friend, is why there's a stiff resistance.

Tribesman

10-07-09, 02:54 AM

And a "Town Hall Tips memo" does not equate to "millions of dollars spent whipping up the masses".
Ah.....That would be the $380 million spent then wouldn't it.

UnderseaLcpl

10-07-09, 04:47 AM

Eloquently put, Aramike. I don't entirely agree with you; I wouldn't favor a government option for healthcare of any kind, but reading your post was one of life's simple joys. I swear, if someone as level-headed and well-spoken as you ever gets put into public office, I might regain some faith in our political system.

If you think the insurance companies haven't poured millions of dollars into whipping up the masses against real health care reform, you're fooling yourself.

But by all means, go ahead and let millions of people die because your corporate masters want to score cheap political points against the other side.

As much as I hate the idea, I have to jump on the mookie-bashing bandwagon now. In all fairness, mookie is one of the most intelligent liberals I have ever met. If there was ever a hope for liberalism to really take root in the educated public, mookie would be its' scion. Come to think of it, if people like mookie were in office, I might not have such a problem with liberalism.

Unfortunately, this post is an exception. Think for a moment, mookie. We are talking about profit-driven healthcare entities here. Moreover, we are talking about successful (as in....profitable) healthcare insurance providers. The whole freaking insurance industry is based upon risk assessment and analysis. What do you think their natural response to even semi-nationalization of the healthcare sytem is going to be? They aren't going to simply watch as the state cannibalizes their business, they're going to lobby like hell to get into the state healthcare program.

What you call "real" healthcare reform is simply an open invitation for plutocracy and purposeful incompetence. It is an invitation to state- enforced monopoly; the worst possible kind of monopoly.

Are you impressed by the lacklustre systems of socialized healthcare employed by other nations? Are you oblivious to the nigh-universal desireability of the US healthcare system? Do you really think that our heretofore incompetent legislative branch is going to put in place an effective system? Did our legislative system suddenly become motivated by something other than personal gain?

Damnit, mookie, you are smarter than that. Why on God's green earth would you wish to replace an imperfect industry with a fiat imperfect industry!? At least we have a choice in a privatized healthcare sytem.
And don't give me any of that crap about so-called "government option".
Private interests are naturally going to gravitate towards the govenment option. They're paying for it already, so why shouldn't they use it? It is more cost-effective.

What you don't seem to see is how this legislation is perverting the market. The state is going to wreck any semblance of truth in price and supply and demand that remains.

You wouldn't let the state make grocery decisions for you for obvious reasons, so why would you let it make healthcare decisions for you? The state does not play by the same rules as we do. It is, by all measures, a plutocratic entity. It must be guarded against and watched with vigilance.

The state is not a genie which will magically effect reforms upon society. It is an entity that is as self-interested as any person or corporation, and one should be very careful when seeking its' aid.

Tribesman

10-07-09, 05:19 AM

You wouldn't let the state make grocery decisions for you for obvious reasons,
The state does make grocery decisions for you.

Tchocky

10-07-09, 05:55 AM

Are you oblivious to the nigh-universal desireability of the US healthcare system?
I suppose since it costs the most it must be the best?

One would think that in a universally desirable system people would not be afraid to get sick. One would think that the main reason people go bankrupt would not be medical debt.

I don't believe that the healthcare system in the US is either the best or the worst in the world. The system in this country is fairly awful right now, but I don't know anyone who's going broke because of medical bills. You pay for hospital care if you don't have insurance, but the maximum you can pay in any one year is €750, regardless of treatment. And if you can't afford that, the government pays it. Friend of mine had a serious heart attack on Friday, two operations later and he's back at home doing fine. Not exactly a nightmare.
Other countries do it better than Ireland, though. Thinking of France/Netherlands.

SteamWake

10-07-09, 08:34 AM

The state does make grocery decisions for you.

Wow ... it just keeps getting better.

Maybe that explains why I can only get good cuban food in Miami.

MothBalls

10-07-09, 08:41 AM

So whos 'manufacturing' things now?

China, South Korea, Japan, basically every country in the world except the US.

UnderseaLcpl

10-07-09, 01:33 PM

The state does make grocery decisions for you.

Yeah, to some extent, and I hate it. Don't even get me started on the FDA and/or agricultural subsidies. Nonetheless, free choice is the rule rather than the exception in that area of the market. Private producers and retailers, vying for private dollars, have provided a bewildering array of food products at ever-lower prices. Our food market is so good that we actually have a problem with obesity, despite the fact that we sell and give away milions of tons of food to other nations every quarter. We also possess some of the largest and most profitable agricultural firms in the world. Companies like Con-Agra and General Mills literally set the global standard for food goods, and they do it without state direction.

The point I was making, however, was that no one of sound mind in this country would willingly let the state run grocery stores or make purchasing decisions for them. Well, maybe some would, but we'd have food shortages faster than you can say "breadlines".

I suppose since it costs the most it must be the best?

Not at all. It's the best because the free market provides competitive incentive. Private healthcare in the US generally is the best in the world, which is why patients the world over flock to our shores for treatment.
Where it falls down and becomes extremely costly is wherever the state is involved. About 25% of our ridiculously huge federal budget is spent on medicare and medicaid, and those programs are bar-none the worst the US has to offer. Just ask people who use them. The AARP(American Association of Retired Persons) spends a good deal of its' time and money breaking down the doors of Congress to demand more money for medicare and medicaid because their constituents are not happy with how the system works now. They think that more funding is the answer, but it isn't.

Case-in-point: The US education system. 90-something percent of all pre-university US students attend public schools, and about half of them are inexcusably stupid. Many do not graduate high school. They can't spell, they can't read well, and they have a only a tenuous grasp of mathematics. I dare anyone here to champion the US education system, any takers?

We are known worldwide for being stupid, largely because of our state-run public education system. The US spends more per student than any other country in the world, and yet we lag behind many of those nations. Why do you suppose that is? Could it have something to do with the fact that taxpaying parents have to pay for public schools whether their child attends one or not? Is it because teachers' jobs are protected by unions? Could it maybe be associated with a lack of competition and lack of incentive that such a system breeds? Perhaps the government "option" for education has crowded out private competition by virtue of the fact that people pay for whether they want it or not and only have a finite amount of income:o Sounds a little like the proposed healthcare "reform", doesn't it?

One would think that in a universally desirable system people would not be afraid to get sick. One would think that the main reason people go bankrupt would not be medical debt.
Actually, we have the opposite problem. People here suffer mostly from hypochondriasis and jurosomatic illness. They get "sick" because the state provides a mechanism for them to profit from it. If you would like, we can discuss the ADA(Americans with Disabilites Act) and the implications of it.

I don't believe that the healthcare system in the US is either the best or the worst in the world. The system in this country is fairly awful right now, but I don't know anyone who's going broke because of medical bills. You pay for hospital care if you don't have insurance, but the maximum you can pay in any one year is €750, regardless of treatment. And if you can't afford that, the government pays it. Friend of mine had a serious heart attack on Friday, two operations later and he's back at home doing fine. Not exactly a nightmare.
Other countries do it better than Ireland, though. Thinking of France/Netherlands.

I won't pretend to know the dynamics of your healthcare system, but your apparent dissatisfaction with it would lead me to suggest that it might benefit from a little healthy competition.

Speaking of competition; if there is one area where Europe has the US beat, it is in the arena of politics. Europe has many political parties and nations competing for their individual interests. The US does not. That is why government works in Europe(not really well, though) where it fails in the US. We only have two parties, and they might as well just be one party. If it weren't for constitutional limits on state power our state would have failed long ago, and even those are steadily being overcome. The incentive provided by competition is a key factor in the performance of any societal system.

Competition makes things better, cheaper, and faster. That is the very essence of it. It is also the definition of social equality. Let those who risk capital reap the rewards and punishments for their actions. If they risk more, should they not stand to gain or lose more? Competition is the mechanism by which you build any successful society. Fiat monopoly is the means by which you destroy the same.

Lassiez-faire,

James

Tribesman

10-07-09, 03:58 PM

Our food market is so good that we actually have a problem with obesity
Could that be down to the state making grocery decisions for you?
Like allowing some rather nice growth promoters to become part of your food intake in your regulated grocery business?
Or maybe the policy of trying to rig the sugar market for political purposes plus bending to the corn lobby resulting in a bloody high usage of HFCS which just happens to cause obesity

Aramike

10-07-09, 04:54 PM

Thanks, Undersea. Trust me, I do understand your reasoning behind preferring a 100% private system, as in a perfect world, I'd agree. The reasons I've decided to be a proponent of some degree of universal coverage is dominated by the fact that we already have a system which unfairly taxes everyone who's actually insured/pays their own medical bills.

The fact is that costs are higher due to adverse government involvement including the Patient Bill of Rights which leads to patient delinquency, lack of an effort to regulate tort, and the astronomical costs associated with dealing with government programs and insurance companies.

The problem arises is that we have a populace that is in no way interested in abandoning the Patient Bill of Rights (not that I think we should) and a government in the pockets of the trial lawyers, who have no interest in limiting damages. Furthermore, insurance companies are really the only act in town, and are able to further manipulate the industry by attempting to deny coverage of people who are likely to require expensive treatments, thereby increasing the cost of delinquencies passed along to the consumer, and moreso to the taxpayer.

Now, I have no problem with a company making a buck, not at all. I DO, however, have a problem with a company profiting off of a market that they directly manipulate - in other words, making money just because they said so.

Right now the economics of healthcare in this country is a cluster. We actually have one of the best infrastructures in the world as far as direct care is concerned. However, regulations that most people agree with have removed some of the capitalistic factors from the equations meaning that costs will continue to rise proportionate to the built-in demands for free service. For example, the underpriviliged are filling up hospital emergency departments (some of the most expensive care you can find) for head colds, knowing that they'll never have to pay a dime. The rest of us foot that bill.

So our choices really are as follows.

1: Purely capitalist. Deny care to those who are uninsured and can't pay.
2: Defacto, hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as we have today).
3: Bureaucratic, government run hyper-inefficient universal coverage (as much of the rest of the world).
4: Steamlined, efficient government regulated universal coverage.

Yeah, I know that "streamlined", "efficient", and "government" doesn't go well together traditionally - but I don't think that it's impossible. I think that, with a combined private/public effort, a balance could be achieved. For example, require insurance companies to cover EVERYONE at a certain rate. But, the government can insure that coverage for financially catastrophic cases. Furthermore, require the insurance to be simple and complete. And, benchmark efficiency in costs.

Just a thought.

Blood_splat

10-07-09, 05:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKXWP2HuxGE :damn:

CaptainHaplo

10-07-09, 06:35 PM

Funny, I haven't seen ANY health care company come out against health care reform. What I HAVE seen, is individuals who take the time to read, say 'Absolutely Not!" to the CURRENT reform proposals.

What is disturbing is that many of the liberals involved in crafting the various proposals - ADMIT they have no idea what the proposals actually say, and have refused to read them.

So what we have here is this. People that don't read the proposals, are all for them. The people that know what is contained in the various legislative bills, are deadset against it.

Why is it that it must be a immediate, total change in the system? Case in point - President Obama says there are BILLIONS wasted in Medicare every year, and he is going to keep from cutting benefits to our older citizens by cutting that waste to help fund the other initiatives. Here is an idea - reform MEDICARE so you don't waste Billions - show the American people that you can be good stewards of a health care related program - show us that you can create an efficient, government overseen medical program, and THEN start discussing how to use that same success to make health care better for even more people.

But the government takeover of health care can't wait - because its more about a power grab than it is looking out for the American People.

Tribesman

10-07-09, 06:55 PM

Funny, I haven't seen ANY health care company come out against health care reform.
Is that because you havn't looked?

August

10-07-09, 07:20 PM

Here is an idea - reform MEDICARE so you don't waste Billions - show the American people that you can be good stewards of a health care related program - show us that you can create an efficient, government overseen medical program, and THEN start discussing how to use that same success to make health care better for even more people.

But the government takeover of health care can't wait - because its more about a power grab than it is looking out for the American People.

This ^

CaptainHaplo

10-07-09, 09:19 PM

Tribesman - try putting some fact out to make the point. Don't try to repeat mookie's though - because while it was a valient attempt - the links referenced individuals who WORK in health care (they have a right to be heard just like anyone else) and an ASSOCIATION - not a specific company. Also note that they SUPPORT reform - just not THIS one. (Or did that mere fact not fit your preconcieved evil corporation viewpoint and thus was ignored?) Show me where Blue Cross Blue Shield for example is putting out commercials about how health care reform is a horrible Idea. Oh wait - you cant. They actually have run some here where they support it - with some major changes. Yet groups like the AARP (who know nothing ABOUT insurance) can sure put out flat out LIES about what is being proposed and no one raises an eyebrow.

Sorry - but double standards and accusation without fact just don't weigh heavy on my mind.

Aramike

10-08-09, 01:00 AM

Tribesman

10-08-09, 02:55 AM

Haplo, make your mind up.
If you want to try and dodge the issue by claiming its an association and as such not valid, then why on earth do you bring in an association and claim it backs up your point.
In case you don't understand.
AHIP is according to you not a valid example as it is an ASSOCIATION of health care providers.
Yet Blue Cross Blue Shield is a valid example despite being an ASSOCIATION of health care providers.

CaptainHaplo

10-08-09, 06:19 AM

Tribesman - stop playing semantics when you know the difference. Unless of course your incapable of understanding the difference.

AHIP is an association in the classic sense, a group of divergent and INDEPENDANT companies that can speak through the association as a collective, singular voice. AHIP does NOT offer or provide any insurance to individual, private citizens, because that is NOT its purpose.

BCBS on the other hand, is an INSURANCE PROVIDER. While it is made up of members that are under contract - they must conform to the rules laid down by BCBS in the coverage they provide, how they deal with doctors, etc. In essence, to the consumer - BCBS is simply one large company.

The fact you try to confuse on semantics - over a word that both use but that is clearly different in their meaning, shows how desperate you are to NOT discuss the real topic - that reform is supported, but not this massive change everything and let the government run it all plan.

Its these kinds of tactics that make the average american look at liberals in power and shake their head. You can't win on facts, so you try everything you can to keep from having to deal with facts. Argue semantics, try and divert the conversation, call out people for having double standards, regardless of if its true, just to keep from having to deal with the facts. And yet your probably trying to figure out why the independants who elected this Congress and President have backed away from the support they once gave.

You can't answer the issue of "why not reform Medicare first" and show some success and build trust with the American people. You can't answer why it must all be done in one fell swoop via legistlation that none of those that support it have actually read. You don't have an answer for the fact that the people that have read it are against it. All you know is its something put out by "your side" - so reality, fact and honest discussion be damned.

That is why THIS health care reform is unlikely to happen. A much more reasonable, affordable plan will end up with support. Because not everyone is as willing as you to wear blinders and follow with ignorance.

*editted to correct 2 spelling errors.

Tribesman

10-08-09, 07:39 AM

You can't answer the issue of "why not reform Medicare first" and show some success and build trust with the American people.
Is that because the insurance providers who are pretty much cleaning up with the current Medicare program are spending lots of money to ensure that popliticians either block legislation on reform or only approve "reform" that doesn't actually reform.
Sorry you will have to remind me. Who are the people who are at meetings objecting to reform of Medicare?
You know the "Keep the stinking government out of my medicare" sort of thing.
If I am not mistaken thats some of the teabagging wingnuts isn't it.
But OK every little group has loonies.
So what about the political parties.
Which party has a good number of its politicians taking a stance that Medicare reform is simply not on the table at all?

Its these kinds of tactics that make the average american look at liberals in power and shake their head. You can't win on facts, so you try everything you can to keep from having to deal with facts. Argue semantics, try and divert the conversation
Would that be winning on facts like calling policies nazi and communist at the same time as well as being unconstitutional and even traitorous and talking nonsense about death panels, euthenasia and illegal immigrants?

actually its the whole mess of american political debate that makes the world shake its head.

Because not everyone is as willing as you to wear blinders and follow with ignorance.
Thats funny as throughout the long discourse of the various healthcare topics people who object to any of the current proposed bills have displayed astounding levels of ignorance on the subject.

SteamWake

10-08-09, 09:29 AM

Who are the people who are at meetings objecting to reform of Medicare?
You know the "Keep the stinking government out of my medicare" sort of thing.
If I am not mistaken thats some of the teabagging wingnuts isn't it.

Ummm no.

Its all irrelevant anyhow at this point there going to vote on it anyhow.

Reid: Senate Finance Committee to Vote on Health Bill Tuesday

Congressional analysts gave a boost Wednesday to the Senate Finance Committee's health care bill, concluding that it would cost $829 billion over the next 10 years -- under the $900 billion target set by President Obama.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/07/cbo-release-cost-report-sweeping-senate-health-care-reform/

UnderseaLcpl

10-08-09, 10:25 AM

Aramike

10-08-09, 12:18 PM

I had a very well thought-out response to this, replete with an asessment of price controls, but my browser decided to stop working.
Here's the jist of it; price controls= bad, they generate shortages and surpluses, so says some notable economists. The US does not have a healthcare shortage, it has a surplus, and there are more effective ways than state healthcare reform to make it more widely available and more resonably priced.

I'll re-type it all when I have some spare time and will.

Edit- almost forgot, I was going to bash tribesman's last post as well. If someone could do it for me and save me some time, I'd be most obliged.Haha, I hate when that happens. :cool:

I do agree that price controls are generally bad, but I believe we're in a situation where there's already price "controls", except that they are dictated by insurers and the uninsured. Perhaps control is not the best word because its more like a giant, artificially inflated cluster you-know-what.

The problem with universal healthcare has typically been one of rationing (i.e., shortages). The problem with OUR version of universal healthcare (the defacto one we're currently using) has been different - it's the inflation of cost WITHOUT shortages.

Healthcare is about as artificial of a capitalist system as one can find. It is an item that is always in a state of increasing demand by the very nature of a burgeoning population enjoying increased longevity. Hell, even oil, as a commodity, has its competitors. But unlike oil and real commodities, healthcare is far more notional meaning that its specific value can nigh be determined.

So what happens is that even in the private sector bloated bureaucracies form ratcheting up the costs of an already hyperinflated sector. Now people must not only pay for the costs and profit of the doctors, nurses, medical equipment and supply manufacturers, drug companies, etc., but also the costs and profits of the bloated institutions that pay them (insurance companies), and even then only so much. Add to that an out of control civil legal system, and you've got a recipe for an unmitigated disaster of a system which determines its own value by nature of essentially just saying that "this is my value".

Hence my position that a drastic, universal overhaul is needed. But, let me restate - Obama's and this Congress' plan is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be a worse disaster than what we already have.

Tribesman

10-08-09, 02:44 PM

Really ?
on which bill?
what verdict did the bi-partisan group give to each of the proposals?

was going to bash tribesman's last post as well.
Don't let your ignorance get in the way.
Come on lance corporl , you raised issues , explore the very issues you raised yourself.
r are you just talking ****e?

SteamWake

10-08-09, 03:36 PM

Ummm no.

Its all irrelevant anyhow at this point they are going to vote on it anyhow.

Really ?
on which bill?
what verdict did the bi-partisan group give to each of the proposals?

Don't let your ignorance get in the way.
Come on lance corporl , you raised issues , explore the very issues you raised yourself.
r are you just talking ****e?

Would you mind editing that so it makes a little more sense.

As to your question I provided the link just to kill time I guess. :doh:

Tribesman

10-08-09, 04:16 PM

Would you mind editing that so it makes a little more sense.

Errrr...so sorry if its too hard to understand .
Which of the bills that went to the commitee are they going to vote on?
Simple isn't it.:rotfl2:
If you want to make it more complicated ..... what verdict did the committee deliver on those bills they reviewed?
If you want to make it even more complicated ....what verdict did the health care providers deliver on those bills?
if you want to keep it simple ...what do some rednecks say about that bill?

Have a clue. If you is on the same page as some of those rednecks then beware , there is a really valid conspiracy theory that the evil feds is going to burn your home down all the way to the chassis

CaptainHaplo

10-08-09, 06:45 PM

Is that because the insurance providers who are pretty much cleaning up with the current Medicare program are spending lots of money to ensure that popliticians either block legislation on reform or only approve "reform" that doesn't actually reform.

Again - a baseless accusation thrown out without fact to back it up. In fact - the whole statement is ludicrous - because PRIVATE INSURANCE companies don't make ANY money on medicare - medicare is administered by firms who deal direct between the government and the doctor - but they ain't INSURANCE firms. Medicare pays doctors for providing care - Medicare IS government insurance. Medicare doesn't pay insurance companys ya goof. The fraud is in the companies that administrate medicare, as well as hospitals and doctors that claim things never done. Neither has anything to do with the "BIG BAD EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES".

Be careful - your ignorance is showing again.

Sorry you will have to remind me. Who are the people who are at meetings objecting to reform of Medicare? You know the "Keep the stinking government out of my medicare" sort of thing. If I am not mistaken thats some of the teabagging wingnuts isn't it.

Well you would be mistaken - but thats not a real suprise to most people. The people objecting to reform (and NOT just of Medicare - which you are intentionally mischaracterizing) are those that have taken the time to read some of the proposals. Something which many of the liberal legislators supporting "reform" have admitted they haven't done, using the fact that its to complicated for them to understand as an excuse.
So your logic is that having read something, researched it, and coming to an informed decision that such a proposal is bad for them personally, then choosing to tell the government representative their view, makes them a "teabagging wingnut". Well, here in the good ole USA, we call it exercising our rights and responsibilities as citizens entitled to self-governance - For the People, BY the People. Yes, I know that concept is hard to grasp - but its why we are truly the most free people in some way - in the world.
So what about the political parties. Which party has a good number of its politicians taking a stance that Medicare reform is simply not on the table at all?

Good question. You infer its the minority party. But yet again you leave innuendo out there - instead of facts. I haven't heard any legislator, on either side of the aisle - say that they are unwilling to look at reform of Medicare - or health care in general. Got a link, or should we again just chalk it up to you making things up?

Would that be winning on facts like calling policies nazi and communist at the same time as well as being unconstitutional and even traitorous and talking nonsense about death panels, euthenasia and illegal immigrants?

Again with the twisting. Someone brings a swastika sign (with a picture of the President on it) showing their personal comparison of how CONTROLLING government looks to be turning into - and somehow you generalize that to everyone who disagrees. As for "death panels" and the like - if it wasn't really there, how come that language that made people so concerned got stricken? After all - if it wasn't true - no need to remove it. Once again we see the pitiful attempts by the left to smear anyone who actual READS what is being proposed. Instead, leftists like you would rather us just shut up and accept whatever the liberals in power want to do, and our rights be damned. Again - its not happening, and its maddening to those who want to control everything, and can't. So go ahead, insult those who choose to be informed. It shows what the EXTREME left is all about. *I note extreme left, because some liberals actually are NOT whack jobs - just like some conservatives aren't. And some on both sides are. Unfortunately - its the wacko's that got elected, by sounding centrist.*

Thats funny as throughout the long discourse of the various healthcare topics people who object to any of the current proposed bills have displayed astounding levels of ignorance on the subject.

Ah yes - as compared to those so well informed politicians that support this reform but admit to not even reading it.

Liberal stance - "You have read the proposal - that means your ignorant. If you have no clue what it says, you are educated and nuanced."

That "logic" is what is astounding.

Aramike

10-09-09, 01:12 AM

Good post, Haplo. On the mark! But be forewarned - Tribesman will only come back with some questions that his Google results precipitate. You know, such as: "what did X say about Y"?

Smart people just make the point, but he's kind of, well, not that, so he likes to maintain a sense of ambiguity as to allow spin and retreat. Heh, I always get a little bit of a chuckle when I think about how he confuses "interpretation" with "context", followed with his insults about how everyone but him and his ilk are idiots.

When I was in elementary school, there was a boy in the "special class" who loved to call everyone "retards". The irony was sad then. Now it's just funny.

I'm just warning you, brother...

Tribesman

10-09-09, 02:40 AM

The people objecting to reform (and NOT just of Medicare - which you are intentionally mischaracterizing) are those that have taken the time to read some of the proposals.
That is a generalisation which you are unable to establish.

Someone brings a swastika sign (with a picture of the President on it) showing their personal comparison of how CONTROLLING government looks to be turning into - and somehow you generalize that to everyone who disagrees.
errrrrr...no , that is you applying a generalisation to someone elses post where there is none.
So is it a case of you making a generalisation and thinking that others are following the same flawed logic that you do and then working your responses from a false premise ?

magic452

10-09-09, 02:45 AM

Have a clue. If you is on the same page as some of those rednecks then beware , there is a really valid conspiracy theory that the evil feds is going to burn your home down all the way to the chassis

They may not burn down my house but they are sure picking my pocket:damn::damn:

Tribesman

10-09-09, 03:12 AM

Heh, I always get a little bit of a chuckle when I think about how he confuses "interpretation" with "context"
I always get a chuckle because aramike doesn't understand what "context" means:rotfl2:

CaptainHaplo

10-09-09, 05:32 PM

For those paying attention to the now cornered tribesman's responses, allow me to translate for you.

Tribesman: Insurance makes too much money from Medicare to ever let reform pass. Thats why they are fighting it with all the money they can!

Captain Haplo: Insurance doesn't make money from Medicare you goof. Medicare IS government insurance - the fraud is at the doctor/hospital level.

Tribesman: Uhm, well, I am going to babble about General Iz Ation. He outranks Private Iz Ation, so we should worry about that General and not about what the subject at hand is. Remember - General Iz Ation is good as long as it works for the liberal cause. Private Iz Ation is bad and should be given KP duty for the rest of eternity. Did I ramble off topic enough to distract everyone from the whole point yet??????

************************************************** **

This has been a public service announcement brought to you by Captain Haplo. Thank you, God Bless America, and good night!

Aramike

10-09-09, 06:04 PM

Tribesman

10-10-09, 04:36 AM

Captain Haplo: Insurance doesn't make money from Medicare you goof. Medicare IS government insurance

wow haplo isn't able to understand the simple fact that the HFCA runs a program that is operated by the health care providers yet jointly administered by medical insurance providers.
The same medical insurance providers that are the topic of discussion .
So the possible options are .
He doesn't know who is involved in the program.
He doesn't understand the program and its administraion.
He does understand but somehow thinks companies work without seeking a profit.
So whichever option is right , it is evident that he simply doesn't understand.

Oh and for those not following Aramikes nonsense.
He delivered an interpretation of a portion of a speech, taken on its own the interpretation of those few words could have been a valid interpretation.
But when examined in the context they were given in it is obvious that the interpretation he deduced can not possibly be correct.
Maintaining that his interpretation was correct shows that he doesn't know what context means.

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 09:23 AM

Well, I guess it falls to me to translate again....

Tribeman: Well your generalizing my generalization so I am going to ramble about that instead of the subject.

Captain Haplo: Your making a fool of yourself by avoiding the topic.

Tribesman: Oh yea. Fine then - take this! I will make up an acronym, say that these made up people are part of the insurance companies and that they administer Medicare. Therefore they are the ones committing all the fraud - and so it IS all the fault of the EVIL INSURANCE COMPANIES! HA!
And while I am at it - my interpretation of what Aramike said is that I don't agree with him. Actually, I have no clue what he (or anyone else for that matter) is talking about, but because not everyone here is a political nascar driver like I am (thats go fast and when in doubt, turn left some more), they must be all wrong. Only legislation, ideas, or interpretations that come from me or other good leftists can be given any credit.

Just because I can't deal with the real subject, or because I have to resort to calling people names like "ignorant" or "teabagging wingnut" because they decide to be informed, doesn't mean I have no clue. Well ok, maybe it does, but I am a liberal - that means I must be right after all.

**************************************************

This has been another public service announcement brought to you by Captain Haplo.

**************************************************

The HFCA huh? Which HFCA would that be?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=HFCA

Would it be the:
Hemlock Farms Community Association (http://hfca.com/) ?

Or would it be one of these?

http://www.abbreviations.com/HFCA

Hydroxy Fluorene Carboxylic Acid?
Heritage Forest Community Association?
Hexanary Feedback Contention Access?
Helicopter Flight Coordination Area?
Hainault Forest Community Association?
High Fat Cholic Acid?
or perhaps its the:
Hawaii Fire Chiefs Association?

Yep - it must be the fault of all those Hawaiian Fire Chiefs. They are really nothing but health care insurance frauds in disguise right?

If your going to argue a point - at least don't try making up things. Oh wait, I forgot - its habit for you.

Now - after having poked some serious fun at you for what I am actually going to give put down to a dyslexic moment - did you mean the HCFA?

If so, your still in deep error. The HCFA is not run by insurance companies, it is part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Therefore, its a government run program, which is being defrauded - at the doctor/hospital level.

Anyone who wants to check - just google HCFA - or see here:
http://www.os.dhhs.gov/about/opdivs/hcfa.html

Begin Edit: Just to make it clear - when you see a commercial for Diabetes supplies, or a older citizen goes to the doctor - who processes the paperword? Is it some insurance company? No. Its the firm selling the supplies or its the staff at the doctor's office. Do a check to see - health care providers have staff dedicated to filing claims - and they file those claim with whatever insurance a person has - private - OR Medicare. But they don't file Medicare to an insurance company - they file it with the government. Thats one reason why alot of doctors don't like Medicare and Medicaid - because they have to deal directly with the government and all its red tape. End Edit.

Sorry tribesman, but bluster, doubletalk, innuendo and insults just don't go well in the face of facts.

Tribesman

10-10-09, 11:41 AM

OK lets take this really slow so perhaps you may be able to understand something very simple .
I suggest that to prove that you are not talking complete rubbish you try and name a private health insurance company that isn't part of medicare.
A single company will be sufficient as I don't want to strain your brain too much .
In fact to ensure you don't strain your brain to much I will offer some handy little hints.
For starters I would suggest that you avoid the company with the biggest share of the business, as proving that a company with the biggest share of the market isn't in the market might be a little difficult.
I would also suggest you avoid the Blue Cross and Blue Shield association as even though one particular branch of that organisation is the company with the third largest market share, due to the complicated nature of the set up the Association has with all its companies you may find yourself getting rather lost.

Then again since you appear completely lost on the subject that won't make any difference.
So lets be really kind and help you out as you re obviously well out of your depth.
Can you demonstrate how an insurance provider like for example http://www.humana.com/ which funnily enough has the 2nd biggest share of the private insurance market in the medicare program really doesn't have a profitable market in private insurance in the medicare program .

It really shows that of the 3 possible options I put forward in the last post the first two happen to be spot on.

Captain Haplo: Your making a fool of yourself by avoiding the topic.

Actually you have made a fool of yourself by attempting a topic when you are clueless.:yep:

Aramike

10-10-09, 01:55 PM

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 03:09 PM

Aramike.... after the drubbing tribesman has gotten already, and his inane attempts to twist the argument or turn it into something entirely unrelated - you even feel a need to ask that?

Oh wait - I just realized - that was a rhetorical question! We shouldn't be suprised.

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 03:33 PM

Tribesman, Tribesman, Tribesman.....

Ok - now I am beginning to understand you. Your not talking about medicare. Your talking about the "supplemental" insurance that is in addition to Medicare.

Lets define Medicare shall we?
I will provide the link at the bottom, though I know your probably not intellectually capable of double checking the fact, so I will post what it says on it.

"Original Medicare is a fee-for-service plan managed by the Federal Government. In general, with Original Medicare:

You use your red, white, and blue Medicare card when you get health care.
You can go to any doctor or supplier that accepts Medicare and is accepting new Medicare patients, or to any hospital or other facility.
You pay a set amount for your health care (a deductible (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM#)) before Medicare pays its part. Then, Medicare pays its share, and you pay your share (your coinsurance (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM#) or copayment (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM#)) for covered services and supplies (unless you have a Medigap policy (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM#) or other supplemental insurance that may pay for these costs.)
You may have a Medigap policy (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM#) or other supplemental coverage that may pay deductibles, coinsurance, or other costs that aren’t covered by Original Medicare. "
Source: http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=OM

This is what MEDICARE actually is. Its what is often termed Medicare Part A (Hospital) and Part B (Medical) coverage. What your complaining about - is what is known as "Medicare Part C' - defined as the following:

"Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options that are approved by Medicare but run by private companies. With Medicare Advantage Plans:

Some of the plans require referrals to see specialists.
In many cases, the premiums (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=MA#) or the costs of services (co-pays (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=MA#) and deductibles (http://www.medicare.gov/MPPF/Static/TabHelp.asp?language=English&version=default&activeTab=3&planType=MA#) ) can be lower than they are in Original Medicare or Original Medicare with a Medigap policy. Medicare Health Plans charge different premiums and have different costs of services, so it is important to check with the plan before you join.
The plans provide all of your Part A (hospital) and Part B (medical) coverage and must cover medically-necessary services.
They often have networks, which means you may have to see doctors who belong to the plan or go to certain hospitals to get covered services.
They generally offer extra benefits, and many include prescription drug coverage.
In many cases, your costs for prescription drug coverage can be lower than in the stand-alone Medicare Prescription Drug Plans.
Some of the plans coordinate your care, using networks and referrals, more than others. This can help manage your overall care and can also result in savings to you.
You don’t need to buy a Medigap policy. "
Now - if you pay attention - they are insurance plans simple APPROVED of by the government. The key here - is they are OPTIONS provided to the consumer. The Approval allows the private insurance firms to simply use the term "Medicare" for marketing. Medicare itself is a GOVERNMENT RUN health care plan. Thats why the information comes from the .gov website.

So either you are too stuck on "lets blame the evil companies" - or your just too dense to realize that things like MEDICARE part C are things people choose on their own. I know - its that whole free market vs sucking the government nipple thing your really struggling with isn't it?

Fraud in medicare is dealt with on the Medicare.gov website - here:
http://www.medicare.gov/fraudabuse/Overview.asp

Notice that even there - the fraud is at the doctor/hospital provider/supplier level.

What is marketed as "part c" is private insurance - and that is totally different than actual medicare. Want to say there is fraud there as well - ok. There is fraud everywhere. But the premise of your argument that MEDICARE is being defrauded by private insurance is again proven to be false. If anyone is being defrauded by private insurance - be it "part c" or standard heath firms, that is a different issue than medicare fraud - because the private side doesn't do anything with ACTUAL MEDICARE. Your really not discussing Medicare - whether you realize it or not. Your complaining about people choosing a private insurance.

It seems to me what your real goal in this issue is - corresponds to that which the liberals in congress have in mind - the removal of private CHOICE and forcing everyone into a single payer system. The fact that it is the ORIGINAL MEDICARE that is being defrauded - that same "single payer" system that would come about - just shows how much the government is continuing to fail to correct its own house, and instead wants to build and even bigger, shoddier one for us all.

Of course, you could always resort to just saying that the links provided are nothing more than a right wing hack conspiracy job of real government websites designed to mislead. It about the only option you have left, except maybe accepting that most feared thing: reality. Or, take a mature route - admit that there was confusion about the topic, and then move forward.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath for that one though.

Tribesman

10-10-09, 04:28 PM

What a classic Haplo realisesd he is wrong so goes on to describe Medicare.
He goes through part A, he goes through part B
Then he goes through part C which he ridiculously claims isn't medicare even though it is Medicare.....
What you are trying to avoid Haplo is that it is a semi-private version of the government run plan where the people choose to buy the insurance and the government pays the insurance companies too, it pays them a fixed fee every month for every customer they have sold policies to.
That is where private insurance companies recieve the government money, money you rather foolishly claimed they don't recieve.

I wonder why you avoid part D entirely, that opens up a whole new can of worms doesn't it.
Face it Haplo you were wrong.

I do notice once again that you decided to make up a ridiculous claims and state that I made them . I particularly like the effort you are expending with "fraud" and "evil corporations" Did you invent them just for the fun of it or did you feel the need to waffle when you realised you were wrong.

Simple summary that even the dumbest person should be able to understand.
Medicare contains a program that is open to private health insurers, those health insurers recieve tax payers money in the form of subsidies, these government subsidies are a matter of contention which some seek to reform or remove.
Some health insurance companies are lobbying to prevent their reciept of tax payers money from being reduced in any reform of Medicare and health insurance

Quote:
PS: Anyone want to explain to me why Tribesman is attempting to use his loss in an argument to me as a strawman for healthcare?
Wow thats a hard one , lets see......errrrr
Oh yeah, you made a post about context and interpretation, that introduces those words to this topic doesn't it . So is that a case of you introducintg a strawman or is it just a silly ad-hominen you chose to introduce.
What is funny though is that you still seem to think your interpretation of a set of words could actually be correct when it cannot possibly be correct.
Would you like to go through the whole Soto speech again to see how many times your interpretation is contradicted?

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 05:31 PM

I bet you looked at a stop sign when you were little and told you mom it was green didn't ya?

Seriously - the fact you can't comprehend the difference between the terms "Run" and "Approved" makes things real clear.

No - Part D does not open up a whole can of worms. Its simply Prescription Medicine coverage that a person can CHOOSE to purchase through a private insurer.

Its really simple Tribesman, though your trying to to INFER its more complicated.

Government runs what is defined as the original MEDICARE. Private insureres can OFFER to individuals plans that meet or exceed certain government requirements. If they do, they can label them "Medicare Part C or Part D" depending on what they cover. These offers are exactly that - options for the consumer. Even the medicare.gov website states that such plans may in fact be lower cost.

So it boils down to this.

#1. The government admits that private insurance would actually be a better deal to the end customer.
#2. The government tells insurers they can use the name "Medicare" in advertising the products if they meet or exceed certain requirements.
#3. Private business then uses its existing leverage with health care providers to negotiate costs in a way that the end user pays less than they would with government insurance.
#4. They label is at "Medicare Part C or Part D" even though its actually nothing to do with Medicare other than the name.
#5. Citizens choosing private insurance with "Part C" or "Part D" save money when compared to those using the government plan.
#6. Tribesman confuses Medicare (as defined by the government's website - a GOVERNMENT RUN INSURANCE PROGRAM) with private insurance marketted with government approval using the same term.
#7. We waste time trying to help him extract his cranium from a specific body orifice, which he unfortunately fights tooth and nail to keep from doing.

Let me see if I can make this REALLY CLEAR.

IF YOU USE THE RED WHITE AND BLUE MEDICARE CARD - YOU HAVE MEDICARE! IF YOU HAVE TO USE A PRIVATE INSURANCE CARD - YOU HAVE PRIVATE INSURANCE.

Not sure why you can not grasp that simple fact. Well - ok I can. Your big government, anti business liberal leanings drive you nuts knowing that even the government has to admit that private insurance (which means transactions between the individual, insurer and health providers with no government control) does better than when the government sticks in nose in and tries do the same thing.

THIS is why people don't want government run health care. Medicare is simply one example where even they admit right now that private industry can do it better than they can. Yet you want to claim that private industry is the problem.

IF GOVERNMENT COULD DO IT BETTER - WHY CAN'T IT BEAT PRIVATE INSURERS RIGHT NOW?

Don't try to answer that - you will just end up talking yourself into circles about the context of generalizations made in a speech by a judge that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

What's worse - none of us would be suprised.

In the end - private business blows the crap out of government when it comes to "bang for the buck". Even they admit it. So gnash your teeth, spit at the screen, and despise the American people for wanting to get the most from their money. Dang - there it is again - it shouldn't be "their" money anyway should it. Just keep driving fast and turning left - but watch out and hang on - because your going to be seeing the whole health care liberal agenda blow a tire and go in the wall. Midterm elections - liberals will be wondering why there wasn't a "Saf-r Barrier"!

Tribesman

10-10-09, 06:03 PM

bet you looked at a stop sign when you were little and told you mom it was green didn't ya?

Seriously - the fact you can't comprehend the difference between the terms "Run" and "Approved" makes things real clear.

You really do have reading problems don't you.

Is that because the insurance providers who are pretty much cleaning up with the current Medicare program are spending lots of money to ensure that popliticians either block legislation on reform or only approve "reform" that doesn't actually reform.

Nothing at all about run or approved, all to do with payments and lobbying.
Strange that as a response you came back with
Again - a baseless accusation thrown out without fact to back it up. In fact - the whole statement is ludicrous - because PRIVATE INSURANCE companies don't make ANY money on medicare - medicare is administered by firms who deal direct between the government and the doctor - but they ain't INSURANCE firms.
Which is clearly false , in fact it is false on so many levels it is really comic.
But hey you know that don't you , which is why you have gone off on irrelevant rubbish ever since.
Its quite simple, you claim that private health insurance is simply private health insurance.
The reality is that the private health insurance under the medicare program is government subsidised health insurance .

Sailor Steve

10-10-09, 06:59 PM

Interesting arguments here. I don't know what's right or wrong about these arguments, but I have to take on the arguments themselves.

Tribesman, are you ever going to actually show anything? So far all you have done in this is to dismiss others' arguments as wrong without actually providing links or evidence of your own. You sound very much like Subman (even to your name) except from the other side of the fence.

I'm certainly waiting for you to say something more useful than that the other guy is an idiot.

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 07:27 PM

I have no knowledge of the government subsidizing private firms to provide part C or D coverage. In fact, a google search on that very question did nothing but provide links to liberal message boards where posters assert that such subsidies exist, but as with the claim above, no proof is offered.

Regarding my earlier post - my meaning I thought would be clear by now - Medicare refers to Part A and Part B - run through the government. Private insurance has no part of this. What is "labeled" part c and part d are seperate entities, and are not - per the government's definition - medicare. They are approved, cheaper OPTIONS for customers. If they were really medicare - a person could use their medicare card for those benefits. They can't. Simple really.

Now, with all that said, I am going to switch gears to prove a point.

Lets assume for a moment that government does subsidize part C or D, or both. While I don't think it does, I have been wrong before. So assuming it does, lets even assume that it subsidizes 75% of the charge it would pay if the person was on government run Medicare. This results in a 25% savings to the government - meaning that all the taxpayers just saved 25%. Add to that that the person recieving care - per the government's own medicare website - will likely also pay less out of pocket.

So even assuming government subsidies - with the example above - private insurance still saves the consumer money, the government money, and thus the taxpayer money.

Yet again it goes back to the initial issue. Private companies - that are saving the government money, saving taxpayers money, saving consumers money - are somehow the evil ones in this whole equation. They are spending money trying to fight reform supposedly - yet they are more efficient than the government - meaning the government program is either completely inept, or it is much more rampant with fraud that private insurers are. If its inept, we should do away with it - and if its filled with fraud, we go back to my earlier question. Why can't the government fix what is visibly broken in a current system, prove it can be a good steward and get something right, and then use that trust and example to then work to improve things further. Refusing to simply work on one thing - and show the people that the government can get it right - instead trying to shove something down our throat that the people can see won't work, especially given past experience, makes it appear as nothing more than a power grab.

No matter how you slice it - private business outperforms government control. Is there fraud out there? Sure there is - in everything. But I once heard a saying that applies here.

"Pointing to the mud on another fish's fins - wont help you swim."

In other words, claiming that private insurance is the problem - when it outperforms the solution being offered just doesn't make sense.

This is why one arguement on health care is based on logic, reason, facts and a willingness to research what we don't know. On the other hand, we have name calling, insults, diversions, claims without verifiability, and simple refusal to even read the changes that are being proposed. I can't speak for anyone but myself on this, but I know which I would prefer when it comes to the decisons that can drastically affect my country - both its economy, and its people.

Tribesman

10-10-09, 07:50 PM

I have no knowledge of the government subsidizing private firms to provide part C or D coverage.
Really?:har::har::har:

Regarding my earlier post - my meaning I thought would be clear by now - Medicare refers to Part A and Part B - run through the government. Private insurance has no part of this. What is "labeled" part c and part d are seperate entities, and are not - per the government's definition - medicare.
Thats funny, your own link from the government says otherwise, is that a case of shooting yourself in the foot ? Are you perhaps going to try and claim that your own "proof" is wrong?

So even assuming government subsidies - with the example above - private insurance still saves the consumer money, the government money, and thus the taxpayer money.

Actually havn't several studies by various groups , like the national center for policy analysis for example found that the mixed method of private insurance with government subsidies can deliver worse results and higher expenses than the solely government run branches of medicare , like the VA who are able to negotiate bigger deals. Also don't they find more disparity with the semi private policy both on levels of availability and choice , especially in some locations. I believe they cite Alaska as the worst state .

In other words, claiming that private insurance is the problem - when it outperforms the solution being offered just doesn't make sense.

Who claimed that private insurance is the problem ?
Are you making up claims to argue against again ?

No matter how you slice it - private business outperforms government control.
Only in certain fields.

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 08:02 PM

#1. Yes really. Thats why I did a quick google search and found nothing but claims like your own without any validation information. Just the same old "it must be true because I said so, or heard it on Oprah".
#2. Hallucinating again?
#3. I dunno - have they? You again infer some study has come to the conclusion you state - but suprise, suprise - we see nothing but a claim without proof. Rhetorical question.... got link? :haha:
#4 - You claimed insurance companies were spending funds to block reform. That would make them the problem. So to answer - YOU did. :har:

Also - you never did give any proof of companies spending such money fighting reform. I can point to BCBS.com for example - that support reform - just not the "let the government run it all" proposals that are being pushed by liberals.

mookiemookie

10-10-09, 08:06 PM

In other words, claiming that private insurance is the problem - when it outperforms the solution being offered just doesn't make sense.

It can't outperform universal single payer because it can't perform at all for the millions of people with no access to it.

Tribesman

10-10-09, 08:28 PM

well done , you have just proved it:rotfl2:
You simply cannot read and cannot understand, you cannot even read you own links.

But hold on, maybe you can read your own links.

I wonder, did you simply edit what you took from your link and hope no one would notice so you could try and spin a line of bull?
Lets see, you claim your link has a definition, a definition by the government no less, thats really convincing stuff
your link says
Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options that are approved by Medicare but run by private companies. They are part of the Medicare Program, and sometimes called "Part C." When you join a Medicare Advantage Plan, you are still in Medicare. With Medicare Advantage Plans:
Oh looky you cut it down to.....
Medicare Advantage Plans are health plan options that are approved by Medicare but run by private companies. With Medicare Advantage Plans
wow you missed out quite a bit didn't you , is that because it contradicts what you claim:har::har::har::har:

It really is funny that is both you and aramike who have recently written
"I did a quick google search and found nothing".
Have you ever considered just going straight to the legislation in question instead?
Oh sorry thats a silly question , if you went to the legislation you might actually know what you were talking about .

CaptainHaplo

10-10-09, 08:48 PM

Mookie - valid point. But it then brings up the question of if health care is a right that should be provided by the government. If not, then whether or not millions can access it or not isn't really the question. What your pointing to is that health care should be available to everyone, regardless. Thats a different matter - and my stand on that is that no, I am responsible for my own health care, just as you should be for yours. If you start with health care - where does it end? Does the government also owe you shelter, food, and a playstation 3?

Tribesman - See if you can follow along. I have established that part C and part D are private insurance. However, to use the term "medicare" - they must be APPROVED by the department of Health and Human Services which oversees Medicare. That means that yes - they are involved - only to the point of gaining approval. I could go out and get a private insurance plan that exceeds a standard part c/d plan in every way - but it wouldnt be classified as medicare part c/d because it simply hasn't been put forth for APPROVAL.

Anytime you go to a government agency to use their term, and get their approval, they consider that they own you. If you want to stretch an approval process (which must be renewed regularly) into being the same thing as part A or B, then your really reaching. In the respect of approval - of course they are "part of medicare" - without it - they wouldnt be classified as they are.

Again - if they fell under the defiiniton of original MEDICARE - then why are they even separating the terms? Thats why you didn't dare touch the definition, or the medicare card vs private insurance card.

Of course - you didn't dare link to anything substantiative regarding insurance subsidies either.

Look, I have an open mind. I looked for some verification of what you claimed - and didn't find it. So point some out. I am willing to be educated. I don't know everything - I am ok with admitting that. But you continually refuse to do it. Which - regardless of whether your right or not, makes you LOOK like your talking out your arse. Instead, you want everyone to take everything you say as absolute truth. Life doesn't work that way. Discussions and debates don't either. I have provided quite a few links, because I know where certain data is and don't mind providing substantiative information to people, so they can determine for themselves what they think. Too bad you refuse. Either it takes too much effort - or you are talking out your arse....

Sea Demon

10-10-09, 09:02 PM

It can't outperform universal single payer because it can't perform at all for the millions of people with no access to it.

Nope. Not even close. Medicare is a total glutton. Absolute proof government run healthcare cannot control costs or perform efficiently:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/05/tracking-taxes-medicare-waste/?test=health

@ Tribesman. You don't seem to know when to quit with any grace. I have never seen somebody on any forum get so pounded the way you have, and not know when to put the shovel down. :D Quit digging.

Sea Demon

10-10-09, 09:08 PM

Read this AMA report as well. Medicare leads the pack in terms of claims denied. According to AMA, government run healthcare is not anywhere near as efficient as private sector care in terms of services rendered.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/368/reportcard.pdf

magic452

10-11-09, 01:09 AM

Edit OOPs wrong message

Sledgehammer427

10-11-09, 01:44 AM

Tribesman

10-11-09, 04:15 AM

@ Tribesman. You don't seem to know when to quit with any grace. I have never seen somebody on any forum get so pounded the way you have, and not know when to put the shovel down.
Thats funny , is that a new definition ?
I didn't realise that people having to invent "facts" to support even their most basic claims amounted to me getting pounded.
In case you missed it Haplo was rather foolish and had to edit a definition just so as to be able to claim that his "definition" was correct.
I think that constitutes a flat out lie doesn't it, if he was right in his claims he wouldn't have to lie would he.

Tribesman - See if you can follow along.
I can follow along fine , you were wrong , you were wrong again , you invented "facts", you were wrong ,you made a silly mistake in having to lie to attempt to hide how wrong you were, amd errrrr...you were wrong.
Easy to follow isn't it.
But go on give an honest answer for a change.
Did you really think you could take a cut and paste definition from a government website then alter that definition without anyone noticing?

BTW sea demon, in that report if the efficiency was so bad how is there only a half percent difference?
Actually how does the fact that 10% of the denied Medicare claims are because the people had no Medicare entitlements at all skew the results?

edit to clarify.
Which - regardless of whether your right or not, makes you LOOK like your talking out your arse. Instead, you want everyone to take everything you say as absolute truth. Life doesn't work that way. Discussions and debates don't either.
I see your problem there , I don't want everyone to take everything I say as absolute truth.
That is why I often simply ask questions. That way when people are able to answer the question they can debate properly.
What you appear to do is claim the answer to the question is wrong without even thinking what the question is or establishing what the answer could be.

mookiemookie

10-11-09, 08:52 AM

If you start with health care - where does it end? With healthcare.

SteamWake

10-11-09, 09:05 AM

Man this is bad....I got lost in all the statistics and dollar amounts and everything else. I think it's about time you guys figure out you aren't going to change the other's opinion anytime soon. Let the ballots do the talking.

Yea if only they would listen to public opinion.

Pelosi, Reed and their minions are going to do their best to get this thing passed regardless of your best intentions.

After all you are not smart enough to know whats good for you and your country. :nope:

But this whole thread has wandered far from the original topic which was basically when el Heffe holds a staged 'show' its forthright and genuine.

When citizens gather to express their dismay there unruly 'tea baggers' who know not of what they speak. It is merely a 'staged' show by a radical fringe dont you know.

CaptainHaplo

10-11-09, 09:50 AM

To true Steamwake. But the discussion shows the liberal double standard - if your informed and have read the bill, your a moron and if you haven't read the bill but support it - your a good caring, nuanced person, or simply a liberal legislator.

Edit: Mookie - why would it stop with healthcare? It didn't stop with social security, it didn't stop with food stamps for the poor, it hasn't stopped with Medicaid for the poor, or with welfare (cash payments) to the poor. History shows it won't stop.

Tribesman

10-11-09, 04:02 PM

To true Steamwake. But the discussion shows the liberal double standard - if your informed and have read the bill, your a moron and if you haven't read the bill but support it - your a good caring, nuanced person, or simply a liberal legislator.

Thats funny , you claimed in a silly generalisation that people who objected were people who understood healthcare legislation.
You then demonstrated that not only did you not understand healthcare legislation , but you felt it neccesary to tell lies to support your position when it was untenable due to your lack of knowledge about healthcare.

Hold on though, a quick question.
When you write....
To true
....going on your proven track record does that translate as "too false"?:rotfl2:

CaptainHaplo

10-11-09, 07:43 PM

Tribesman,

I posted authentication to my position, explained clearly the difference between government RUN Medicare and government APPROVED private plans. I have also pointed out how the private component outperforms the government run option.

What have you done? Whine over things you say were generalizations, yet you were the one to call those in oppostion "teabagging wingnuts". When confronted and challenged to provide proof of your insuations, you blindly ignore them, making further accusations without any verification. Perhaps you think if you throw enough stuff up, something may stick.

Its one thing when you ignore those challenges from an opponent. But you were even called out by someone who was looking to find out more - and yet you blindly ran on babbling and accusing.

And now - you call me a liar. How ironic. Whats more - how pitiful. You can't back up your arguement, so you have to twist the arguement into a personal attack. I explained clearly my position. I even left open the door for you to show me where subsidies existed. Had you done so, I would have admitted that I would have needed to review my position. I did in fact do a little research and found nothing. Instead, of debating or informing, you try to avoid all the discussion and instead try to discredit me with an uncalled for personal attack.

If I was a little less mature, I might get upset about it. But thankfully, thats not the case. Instead, I really do pity you. I don't know much about you, but your tendency to pretend to have a total understanding of subjects while doing nothing but demeaning anyone who disagrees, indicate an unwillingness to look at yourself and your views to further mature. Maybe one day you will realize that growing up means more than calling people names and refusing to consider facts outside what you have already predetermined.

What I do find funny - is that the tactic you now pursue is exactly the same as the liberals in power are doing at the same moment. If you can't win in the "arena of ideas" - try to discredit the opponent. Well, I will let folks like Sailor Steve, and other members I hold in high regard decide whether I am discredited. Your personal attack without reason demonstrates you are unworthy of ANY regard.

Tribesman

10-12-09, 04:43 AM

Tribesman,

I posted authentication to my position
You had to flat out lie to try and authenticate your position.
Your idea of authentication was to take a passage , remove all the content that contradicted your claim and then claim that you were correct .
If you were correct you would not have had to lie.
The fact that you had to lie shows that not only were you wrong but that you clearly knew you were wrong.

And now - you call me a liar.
Yes, unless of course you wish to redefine the word so that it no longer means liar.
Thats a good idea, why don't you post a definition from a dictionary but remove the definition and then claim you are correct:rotfl2:

If I was a little less mature, I might get upset about it.
If you were mature you wouldn't have been posting silly childish lies in an effort to hide from the fact that you were wrong and knew you were wrong.

If you can't win in the "arena of ideas" - try to discredit the opponent.
I didn't have to try and discredit you , you managed that all by yourself by attempting a very silly and easily detectable lie.

Tribesman

10-12-09, 07:12 AM

Well you learn something new everyday.
I had thought that the government subsidies(Haplo says doesn't exist) which are paid to the health insurance companies(which Haplo says are not in medicare and don't make any money from it) were simply on a per capita basis with the standard subsidy paid each month to the insurer based on how many policies they were operating.
I never realised that the subsidies the government pays monthly to the companies on a per capita basis also have a risk equalisation clause which varies the payments.
So if for example you are a medical insurance company and you sell a medicare insurance policy somewhere like Miami-Dade your monthly per capita subsidy recieved from the government is actually double the amount you would get from the govenment than if you sold a policy elsewhwere in Florida.

Oh and to get back to Sea Demon .
Do you have anything to say about the government/private plan costing the government 14% more than the governments own plan costs them?
Would you have any comment on both the Congressional Budget Office and the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission claiming that the private involvement costs more and delivers no measurable benefit over the cheaper version?

UnderseaLcpl

10-16-09, 11:52 PM

I'm dragging this back up for some unfinished business.

Don't let your ignorance get in the way.

If by "ignorance" you mean "job" and "associated time constraints", you're right, but I'm afraid there isn't much I can do about it.:DL

Come on lance corporl , you raised issues , explore the very issues you raised yourself.
r are you just talking ****e?

Lol. Chill out, Tribesman. Despite the occasional heated discussion, we're all friends here, right? :up:
I was joking about bashing your post. I don't really bash posts, per se.
I knew where this thread was headed, and what the responses to your post were likely to be. Asking someone to bash the post for me for the sake of irony seemed pretty funny to me at the time, but it was an act of shameless self-amusement and you have my apologies. Speaking of which, I think this thread could use a little more constructive discourse and a little less insult-hurling..... even though CH's translation thing was pretty funny. (Shame on you, CH:DL) I mean :nope:

All that aside, let's move on to very issues I raised myself before my ignorance forced me to abandon them. Is this the one in question?

Could that be down to the state making grocery decisions for you?
Like allowing some rather nice growth promoters to become part of your food intake in your regulated grocery business?
Or maybe the policy of trying to rig the sugar market for political purposes plus bending to the corn lobby resulting in a bloody high usage of HFCS which just happens to cause obesity

We're certainly agreed upon the fact that the state regularly bends to the corn lobby, as well as a lot of other lobbies. That's one of the main problems with the state, imo. It is an unparalleled mechanism for circumventing the dynamics of competition and the free market. Why should business compete if it can simply go to the people in charge and have them hamstring the competition? Of course, they are never so direct about it as that. They prefer using televised PR ads that feature sobbing children and foreboding music while they make impassioned pleas to legislators who only got into office because they won a popularity contest amongst a disinterested electorate. That doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me. It sounds like a good way to get into the exact situation we have right now; a collapsed market brought about by state interference in a capitalist system, which is precisely what I intend to discuss with Aramike in a moment.

As for the use of high-fructose corn syrup, what about it? It's a low-cost sweetener and a popular food additive. Agribusiness didn't have to lobby for it. It is pervasive because people like sweet foods. And it doesn't cause[I] obesity. I'm sure it doesn't help people to be thin; human metabolism is kind of inefficient when it comes to breaking down complex sugars and reconstituting them as other nutrients, but it certainly doesn't cause obesity.
Almost half of the people in this nation are clinically obese, but more than half of them are [I]not, and they eat many of the same foods. The ones that are obese generally got that way from a combination of two factors: inactivity and overeating. The low cost of food has certainly contributed to the latter, but so have government programs aimed at eliminating hunger.
The former has more to do with our success as a society than anything else. In short, our main problem is a resource surplus.
We can go into that if you wish, but I'll defer the point until later because this post is getting long already.

Now, let's get down to brass tacks, shall we? I' a bit behind on the discussion, but I'd like to talk about Aramike's proposed solution. As I implied before, if someone like Aramike or mookie were to draft this legislation, I might have a little faith in it. CaptainHaplo, to his credit, might also come up with something practicable, but I still remember his post about blowing up Mecca and Medina, so he gets negative points ;)

IIRC (and I do, because we have a quote function) Aramike suggested something along these lines;

Yeah, I know that "streamlined", "efficient", and "government" doesn't go well together traditionally - but I don't think that it's impossible. I think that, with a combined private/public effort, a balance could be achieved.

"Streamlined", "efficient", and "government" don't just not go well together traditionally; they don't go together at all. That goes double for large and intrusive governments. The problem isn't that we don't have intelligent people to draft the legislation, it's that such legislation cannot be drafted.

Do you really think that anyone in this nation, or even on the face of this planet, is going to be able to legislate an effective healthcare system?

For example, require insurance companies to cover EVERYONE at a certain rate. But, the government can insure that coverage for financially catastrophic cases. Furthermore, require the insurance to be simple and complete. And, benchmark efficiency in costs.
I can see where you're heading with this, and I even agree with a bit of it, but overall this is a recipe for disaster.

Let me start by saying that I can understand the promising nature of having the state cover financially catastrophic cases, and that I also understand the need for simple (if not complete) healthcare coverage. We are agreed upon that much, at least. The FDIC is one of the few federal programs that I think was a wise idea, and it has worked quite well until recently. I can see how the same sort of mechanism could be employed to cover catastrophic healthcare cases.
Legislation that simplifies healthcare coverage is similarly desirable. Current policies are far too nebulous, and complicate the market unnecessarily. That is due in part to the vast legal labyrinth that regulates the insurance industry. That legal structure should be simplified to the point of practicability and enforceability, of that I have no doubt. Personally, I'd like to see legislation that reverses most of the current preventative civil laws concerning what constitutes malpractice and licensure, and start anew with laws focused upon punishing negligence and fraud. Surely, you can see the merit in such a system. Rather than having a preemptive system full of loopholes that is designed by out-of-touch bureaucrats, we could have a nearly foolproof system that employs the universal mechanism of consequence. I'm being somewhat vague because of time constraints, but what I am basically suggesting is a legal framework that supports a system wherein consumers alert regulatory agencies of wrongdoing rather than having regulatory agencies try to prevent wrongdoing. This, I believe, will be more cost-effective and beneficial overall. Just look at the lengths to which companies go to prevent lawsuits. That's due to reactive market mechanics, not preventative government regulation.

What I disagree with is the idea that insurance companies should be required to cover everyone at a certain rate. You mention "benchmark efficiency in costs", but who sets that benchmark? The most successful company? The state? Consumers? Forgive my lack of understanding if I misinterpret you but I only see consumers as being able to establish a benchmark for costs and I only see the market as a way to realize that benchmark.

Certainly, the state is not the agent you suggest? Give me an example of the state ever establishing a benchmark in anything other than wastefulness and inefficiency and we may have room for compromise. Similarly, a company cannot set the benchmark because market mechanics will not allow it. If every retailer had to use Wal-Mart's prices they would go out of business because they cannot obtain supplies at the same price. If you advocate either of those agents, you are inviting monopoly, which is inefficient and abusive by its' very nature. Worse, you are inviting a fiat monopoly, protected by state monopoly on force.

What you are talking about, my friend, is price control, and price control never works. There is no agency, besides the market, that can effectively regulate prices. When Erhardt brought about the Wirtschaftswunder, the first thing he did was to abolish price controls. When Xiaoping established the special economic zones that now form the backbone of the modern Chinese economy, the first thing he did was to abolish price controls. When Friedman
was consulted about the gas crisis of the 70's, the first thing he suggested was to abolish price controls. In all these cases, the abolishment of price controls led to a resurgence of the market and a stabilization of prices.

Conversely, the very best way to establish a shortage or surplus is to set price controls and then let the state set prices. The market is a very dynamic and fast-moving entity because it is comprised of millions and sometimes billions of people interacting with the goal of self (and therefore mutual) benefit billions of times per day. The state is a very slow, semi-methodical, and also self-interested entity. If it sets prices too low, there will be a shortage, because by the time the state actually gets around to doing something about prices, it is too late. If it sets them too high, there will be a surplus for the same reason. We have seen this too many times already. If you want a worst-case scenario, you can look at the Soviet Union, and if you want a best-case scenario, you can look at the U.S and some of the E.U. nations, where price controls simply led to spiraling state expenses, simply for the sake of preserving the system. Ultimately, both suffer the same fate.

Healthcare in the U.S. needs reform, of that there can be no doubt. Insurance is too expensive, for people and companies alike. But the most efficient way to reform it is to get the government out of the system.

Here's an idea to reduce healthcare expenses upon the average citizen by about 35% and simultaneously encourage competition, thereby encouraging lower insurance costs: Cut corporate taxes entirely. Taxing or attempting to control business is stupid. It simply passes the costs along to the consumer, because it must maintain an acceptable profit margin.

As I said before; Maybe, just maybe, if someone as level-headed as you managed to get into office, some legislation that is more effective than simple market mechanics could be drafted, but I have my doubts.