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

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
Oh looky you cut it down to.....
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 .

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....

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...e/?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.

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/upl...reportcard.pdf

Edit OOPs wrong message

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.

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.


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.
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.

With healthcare.

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.

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.

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....
....going on your proven track record does that translate as "too false"?:rotfl2:

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.

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.

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 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.

I didn't have to try and discredit you , you managed that all by yourself by attempting a very silly and easily detectable lie.

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?

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


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
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?

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 [I]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 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;

"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?



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.